Mostproposalsforenhancingourprivacytreatitasanendinitself.

Insteadweneedtobetalking
abouthowtobeststimulatedemocracyabalancingactthatlawsormarketmechanismscant
achievealone.

MITTECHNOLOGYREVIEW
THEREALPRIVACYPROBLEM
EVGENYMOROZOV
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520426/therealprivacy
problem/

In1967,ThePublicInterest,thenaleadingvenueforhighbrowpolicy
debate,publishedaprovocativeessaybyPaulBaran,oneofthefathersof
thedatatransmissionmethodknownaspacketswitching.TitledTheFuture
ComputerUtility,theessayspeculatedthatsomedayafewbig,centralized
computerswouldprovideinformationprocessingthesamewayonenow
buyselectricity.
Ourhomecomputerconsolewillbeusedtosendandreceivemessages
liketelegrams.Wecouldchecktoseewhetherthelocaldepartmentstorehas
theadvertisedsportsshirtinstockinthedesiredcolorandsize.Wecould
askwhendeliverywouldbeguaranteed,ifweordered.Theinformation
wouldbeuptotheminuteandaccurate.Wecouldpayourbillsand
computeourtaxesviatheconsole.Wewouldaskquestionsandreceive
answersfrominformationbanksautomatedversionsoftodayslibraries.
Wewouldobtainuptotheminutelistingofalltelevisionandradio
programsThecomputercould,itself,sendamessagetoremindusofan
impendinganniversaryandsaveusfromthedisastrousconsequencesof
forgetfulness.
IttookdecadesforcloudcomputingtofulfillBaransvision.Buthewas
prescientenoughtoworrythatutilitycomputingwouldneeditsown
regulatorymodel.HerewasanemployeeoftheRANDCorporationhardly
aredoubtofMarxistthoughtfrettingabouttheconcentrationofmarket
powerinthehandsoflargecomputerutilitiesanddemandingstate
intervention.Baranalsowantedpoliciesthatcouldoffermaximum
protectiontothepreservationoftherightsofprivacyofinformation:
Highlysensitivepersonalandimportantbusinessinformationwillbestored
inmanyofthecontemplatedsystemsAtpresent,nothingmorethantrust
or,atbest,alackoftechnicalsophisticationstandsinthewayofa
wouldbeeavesdropperTodaywelackthemechanismstoinsure

adequatesafeguards.Becauseofthedifficultyinrebuildingcomplex
systemstoincorporatesafeguardsatalaterdate,itappearsdesirableto
anticipatetheseproblems.
Sharp,bullshitfreeanalysis:technofuturismhasbeenindeclineeversince.
Alltheprivacysolutionsyouhearaboutareonthewrongtrack.
ToreadBaransessay(justoneofthemanyonutilitycomputingpublished
atthetime)istorealizethatourcontemporaryprivacyproblemisnot
contemporary.ItsnotjustaconsequenceofMarkZuckerbergssellinghis
soulandourprofilestotheNSA.Theproblemwasrecognizedearlyon,and
littlewasdoneaboutit.
AlmostallofBaransenvisionedusesforutilitycomputingarepurely
commercial.Orderingshirts,payingbills,lookingforentertainment,
conqueringforgetfulness:thisisnottheInternetofvirtualcommunities
andnetizens.Baransimplyimaginedthatnetworkedcomputingwould
allowustodothingsthatwealreadydowithoutnetworkedcomputing:
shopping,entertainment,research.Butalso:espionage,surveillance,and
voyeurism.

IfBaranscomputerrevolutiondoesntsoundveryrevolutionary,itsin
partbecausehedidnotimaginethatitwouldupendthefoundationsof
capitalismandbureaucraticadministrationthathadbeeninplacefor
centuries.Bythe1990s,however,manydigitalenthusiastsbelieved

otherwise;theywereconvincedthatthespreadofdigitalnetworksandthe
rapiddeclineincommunicationcostsrepresentedagenuinelynewstagein
humandevelopment.Forthem,thesurveillancetriggeredinthe2000sby
9/11andthecolonizationofthesepristinedigitalspacesbyGoogle,
Facebook,andbigdatawereaberrationsthatcouldberesistedoratleast
reversed.Ifonlywecouldnowerasethedecadewelostandreturntothe
utopiaofthe1980sand1990sbypassingstricterlaws,givingusersmore
control,andbuildingbetterencryptiontools!
Adifferentreadingofrecenthistorywouldyieldadifferentagendaforthe
future.Thewidespreadfeelingofemancipationthroughinformationthat
manypeoplestillattributetothe1990swasprobablyjustaprolonged
hallucination.Bothcapitalismandbureaucraticadministrationeasily
accommodatedthemselvestothenewdigitalregime;boththriveon
informationflows,themoreautomatedthebetter.Laws,markets,or
technologieswontstymieorredirectthatdemandfordata,asallthreeplay
aroleinsustainingcapitalismandbureaucraticadministrationinthefirst
place.Somethingelseisneeded:politics.
Evenprogramsthatseeminnocuouscanunderminedemocracy.
First,letsaddressthesymptomsofourcurrentmalaise.Yes,the
commercialinterestsoftechnologycompaniesandthepolicyinterestsof
governmentagencieshaveconverged:bothareinterestedinthecollection
andrapidanalysisofuserdata.GoogleandFacebookarecompelledto
collectevermoredatatoboosttheeffectivenessoftheadstheysell.
Governmentagenciesneedthesamedatatheycancollectiteitherontheir
ownorincoperationwithtechnologycompaniestopursuetheirown
programs.
Manyofthoseprogramsdealwithnationalsecurity.Butsuchdatacanbe
usedinmanyotherwaysthatalsoundermineprivacy.TheItalian
government,forexample,isusingatoolcalledtheredditometro,orincome
meter,whichanalyzesreceiptsandspendingpatternstoflagpeoplewho
spendmorethantheyclaiminincomeaspotentialtaxcheaters.Oncemobile
paymentsreplacealargepercentageofcashtransactionswithGoogleand
Facebookasintermediariesthedatacollectedbythesecompanieswillbe
indispensabletotaxcollectors.Likewise,legalacademicsarebusyexploring
howdataminingcanbeusedtocraftcontractsorwillstailoredtothe
personalities,characteristics,andpastbehaviorofindividualcitizens,
boostingefficiencyandreducingmalpractice.
Onanotherfront,technocratslikeCassSunstein,theformeradministratorof

theOfficeofInformationandRegulatoryAffairsattheWhiteHouseanda
leadingproponentofnannystatecraftthatnudgescitizenstodocertain
things,hopethatthecollectionandinstantanalysisofdataaboutindividuals
canhelpsolveproblemslikeobesity,climatechange,anddrunkdrivingby
steeringourbehavior.AnewbookbythreeBritishacademicsChanging
Behaviours:OntheRiseofthePsychologicalStatefeaturesalonglist
ofsuchschemesatworkintheU.K.,wherethegovernmentsnudgingunit,
inspiredbySunstein,hasbeensosuccessfulthatitsabouttobecomeafor
profitoperation.
ThankstosmartphonesorGoogleGlass,wecannowbepingedwhenever
weareabouttodosomethingstupid,unhealthy,orunsound.Wewouldnt
necessarilyneedtoknowwhytheactionwouldbewrong:thesystems
algorithmsdothemoralcalculusontheirown.Citizenstakeontheroleof
informationmachinesthatfeedthetechnobureaucraticcomplexwithour
data.Andwhywouldntwe,ifwearepromisedslimmerwaistlines,cleaner
air,orlonger(andsafer)livesinreturn?
ThislogicofpremptionisnotdifferentfromthatoftheNSAinitsfight
againstterror:letspreventproblemsratherthandealwiththeir
consequences.EvenifwetiethehandsoftheNSAbysomecombination
ofbetteroversight,stricterrulesondataaccess,orstrongerandfriendlier
encryptiontechnologiesthedatahungerofotherstateinstitutionswould
remain.Theywilljustifyit.Onissueslikeobesityorclimatechangewhere
thepolicymakersarequicktoaddthatwearefacingatickingbomb
scenariotheywillsayalittledeficitofdemocracycangoalongway.
Hereswhatthatdeficitwouldlooklike:thenewdigitalinfrastructure,
thrivingasitdoesonrealtimedatacontributedbycitizens,allowsthe
technocratstotakepolitics,withallitsnoise,friction,anddiscontent,outof
thepoliticalprocess.Itreplacesthemessystuffofcoalitionbuilding,
bargaining,anddeliberationwiththecleanlinessandefficiencyofdata
poweredadministration.
Thisphenomenonhasamemefriendlyname:algorithmicregulation,as
SiliconValleypublisherTimOReillycallsit.Inessence,informationrich
democracieshavereachedapointwheretheywanttotrytosolvepublic
problemswithouthavingtoexplainorjustifythemselvestocitizens.Instead,
theycansimplyappealtoourownselfinterestandtheyknowenough
aboutustoengineeraperfect,highlypersonalized,irresistiblenudge.
Privacyisameanstodemocracy,notanendinitself.
Anotherwarningfromthepast.Theyearwas1985,andSpirosSimitis,

Germanysleadingprivacyscholarandpractitioneratthetimethedata
protectioncommissioneroftheGermanstateofHessewasaddressingthe
UniversityofPennsylvaniaLawSchool.Hislectureexploredtheverysame
issuethatpreoccupiedBaran:theautomationofdataprocessing.ButSimitis
didntlosesightofthehistoryofcapitalismanddemocracy,sohesaw
technologicalchangesinafarmoreambiguouslight.
Healsorecognizedthatprivacyisnotanendinitself.Itsameansof
achievingacertainidealofdemocraticpolitics,wherecitizensaretrustedto
bemorethanjustselfcontentedsuppliersofinformationtoallseeingand
alloptimizingtechnocrats.Whereprivacyisdismantled,warnedSimitis,
boththechanceforpersonalassessmentofthepoliticalprocessandthe
opportunitytodevelopandmaintainaparticularstyleoflifefade.

ThreetechnologicaltrendsunderpinnedSimitissanalysis.First,henoted,
evenbackthen,everysphereofsocialinteractionwasmediatedby
informationtechnologyhewarnedoftheintensiveretrievalofpersonal
dataofvirtuallyeveryemployee,taxpayer,patient,bankcustomer,welfare
recipient,orcardriver.Asaresult,privacywasnolongersolelyaproblem
ofsomeunluckyfellowcaughtoffguardinanawkwardsituation;ithad
becomeeveryonesproblem.Second,newtechnologieslikesmartcardsand
videotexnotonlyweremakingitpossibletorecordandreconstruct
individualactivitiesinminutedetailbutalsowerenormalizing

surveillance,weavingitintooureverydaylife.Third,thepersonal
informationrecordedbythesenewtechnologieswasallowingsocial
institutionstoenforcestandardsofbehavior,triggeringlongtermstrategies
ofmanipulationintendedtomoldandadjustindividualconduct.
Moderninstitutionscertainlystoodtogainfromallthis.Insurance
companiescouldtailorcostsavingprogramstotheneedsanddemandsof
patients,hospitals,andthepharmaceuticalindustry.Policecouldusenewly
availabledatabasesandvariousmobilityprofilestoidentifypotential
criminalsandlocatesuspects.Welfareagenciescouldsuddenlyunearth
fraudulentbehavior.
Buthowwouldthesetechnologiesaffectusascitizensassubjectswho
participateinunderstandingandreformingtheworldaroundus,notjustas
consumersorcustomerswhomerelybenefitfromit?
Incaseaftercase,Simitisargued,westoodtolose.Insteadofgettingmore
contextfordecisions,wewouldgetless;insteadofseeingthelogicdriving
ourbureaucraticsystemsandmakingthatlogicmoreaccurateandless
Kafkaesque,wewouldgetmoreconfusionbecausedecisionmakingwas
becomingautomatedandnooneknewhowexactlythealgorithmsworked.
Wewouldperceiveamurkierpictureofwhatmakesoursocialinstitutions
work;despitethepromiseofgreaterpersonalizationandempowerment,the
interactivesystemswouldprovideonlyanillusionofmoreparticipation.As
aresult,interactivesystemssuggestindividualactivitywhereinfactno
morethanstereotypedreactionsoccur.
IfyouthinkSimitiswasdescribingafuturethatnevercametopass,consider
arecentpaperonthetransparencyofautomatedpredictionsystemsbyTal
Zarsky,oneoftheworldsleadingexpertsonthepoliticsandethicsofdata
mining.Henotesthatdataminingmightpointtoindividualsandevents,
indicatingelevatedrisk,withouttellinguswhytheywereselected.Asit
happens,thedegreeofinterpretabilityisoneofthemostconsequential
policydecisionstobemadeindesigningdataminingsystems.Zarskysees
vastimplicationsfordemocracyhere:
Anoninterpretableprocessmightfollowfromadatamininganalysiswhich
isnotexplainableinhumanlanguage.Here,thesoftwaremakesitsselection
decisionsbaseduponmultiplevariables(eventhousands)Itwouldbe
difficultforthegovernmenttoprovideadetailedresponsewhenaskedwhy
anindividualwassingledouttoreceivedifferentiatedtreatmentbyan
automatedrecommendationsystem.Themostthegovernmentcouldsayis
thatthisiswhatthealgorithmfoundbasedonpreviouscases.

Thisisthefuturewearesleepwalkinginto.Everythingseemstowork,and
thingsmightevenbegettingbetteritsjustthatwedontknowexactly
whyorhow.
Toolittleprivacycanendangerdemocracy.Butsocantoomuchprivacy.
Simitisgotthetrendsright.Freefromdubiousassumptionsaboutthe
Internetage,hearrivedatanoriginalbutcautiousdefenseofprivacyasa
vitalfeatureofaselfcriticaldemocracynotthedemocracyofsome
abstractpoliticaltheorybutthemessy,noisydemocracyweinhabit,withits
neverendingcontradictions.Inparticular,Simitissmostcrucialinsightis
thatprivacycanbothsupportandunderminedemocracy.
Traditionally,ourresponsetochangesinautomatedinformationprocessing
hasbeentoviewthemasapersonalproblemfortheaffectedindividuals.A
caseinpointistheseminalarticleTheRighttoPrivacy,byLouis
BrandeisandSamuelWarren.Writingin1890,theysoughtarighttobelet
alonetoliveanundisturbedlife,awayfromintruders.Accordingto
Simitis,theyexpressedadesire,commontomanyselfmadeindividualsat
thetime,toenjoy,strictlyforthemselvesandunderconditionsthey
determined,thefruitsoftheireconomicandsocialactivity.

Alaudablegoal:withoutextendingsuchlegalcovertoentrepreneurs,

modernAmericancapitalismmighthaveneverbecomesorobust.Butthis
right,disconnectedfromanymatchingresponsibilities,couldalsosanction
anexcessivelevelofwithdrawalthatshieldsusfromtheoutsideworldand
underminesthefoundationsoftheverydemocraticregimethatmadethe
rightpossible.Ifallcitizensweretofullyexercisetheirrighttoprivacy,
societywouldbedeprivedofthetransparentandreadilyavailabledatathats
needednotonlyforthetechnocratssakebutevenmoresothatcitizens
canevaluateissues,formopinions,anddebate(and,occasionally,firethe
technocrats).
Thisisnotaproblemspecifictotherighttoprivacy.Forsomecontemporary
thinkers,suchastheFrenchhistorianandphilosopherMarcelGauchet,
democraciesriskfallingvictimtotheirownsuccess:havinginstituteda
legalregimeofrightsthatallowcitizenstopursuetheirownprivateinterests
withoutanyreferencetowhatsgoodforthepublic,theystandtoexhaust
theveryresourcesthathaveallowedthemtoflourish.
Whenallcitizensdemandtheirrightsbutareunawareoftheir
responsibilities,thepoliticalquestionsthathavedefineddemocraticlifeover
centuriesHowshouldwelivetogether?Whatisinthepublicinterest,and
howdoIbalancemyowninterestwithit?aresubsumedintolegal,
economic,oradministrativedomains.Thepoliticalandthepublicno
longerregisterasdomainsatall;laws,markets,andtechnologiesdisplace
debateandcontestationaspreferred,lessmessysolutions.
Butademocracywithoutengagedcitizensdoesntsoundmuchlikea
democracyandmightnotsurviveasone.ThiswasobvioustoThomas
Jefferson,who,whilewantingeverycitizentobeaparticipatorinthe
governmentofaffairs,alsobelievedthatcivicparticipationinvolvesa
constanttensionbetweenpublicandprivatelife.Asocietythatbelieves,as
Simitisputit,thatthecitizensaccesstoinformationendswherethe
bourgeoisclaimforprivacybeginswontlastasawellfunctioning
democracy.
Thusthebalancebetweenprivacyandtransparencyisespeciallyinneedof
adjustmentintimesofrapidtechnologicalchange.Thatbalanceitselfisa
politicalissueparexcellence,tobesettledthroughpublicdebateand
alwaysleftopenfornegotiation.Itcantbesettledonceandforallbysome
combinationoftheories,markets,andtechnologies.AsSimitissaid:Far
frombeingconsideredaconstitutiveelementofademocraticsociety,
privacyappearsasatoleratedcontradiction,theimplicationsofwhichmust
becontinuouslyreconsidered.

Lawsandmarketmechanismsareinsufficientsolutions.
Inthelastfewdecades,aswebegantogeneratemoredata,ourinstitutions
becameaddicted.Ifyouwithheldthedataandseveredthefeedbackloops,
itsnotclearwhethertheycouldcontinueatall.We,ascitizens,arecaught
inanoddposition:ourreasonfordisclosingthedataisnotthatwefeeldeep
concernforthepublicgood.No,wereleasedataoutofselfinterest,on
Googleorviaselftrackingapps.Wearetoocheapnottousefreeservices
subsidizedbyadvertising.Orwewanttotrackourfitnessanddiet,andthen
wesellthedata.
Simitisknewevenin1985thatthiswouldinevitablyleadtothealgorithmic
regulationtakingshapetoday,aspoliticsbecomespublicadministration
thatrunsonautopilotsothatcitizenscanrelaxandenjoythemselves,onlyto
benudged,occasionally,whenevertheyareabouttoforgettobuybroccoli.
Habits,activities,andpreferencesarecompiled,registered,andretrievedto
facilitatebetteradjustment,nottoimprovetheindividualscapacitytoact
andtodecide.Whatevertheoriginalincentiveforcomputerizationmayhave
been,processingincreasinglyappearsastheidealmeanstoadaptan
individualtoapredetermined,standardizedbehaviorthataimsatthehighest
possibledegreeofcompliancewiththemodelpatient,consumer,taxpayer,
employee,orcitizen.
WhatSimitisisdescribinghereistheconstructionofwhatIcallinvisible
barbedwirearoundourintellectualandsociallives.Bigdata,withitsmany
interconnecteddatabasesthatfeedoninformationandalgorithmsofdubious
provenance,imposessevereconstraintsonhowwematurepoliticallyand
socially.TheGermanphilosopherJrgenHabermaswasrighttowarnin
1963thatanexclusivelytechnicalcivilizationisthreatenedbythe
splittingofhumanbeingsintotwoclassesthesocialengineersandthe
inmatesofclosedsocialinstitutions.
Theinvisiblebarbedwireofbigdatalimitsourlivestoaspacethatmight
lookquietandenticingenoughbutisnotofourownchoosingandthatwe
cannotrebuildorexpand.Theworstpartisthatwedonotseeitassuch.
Becausewebelievethatwearefreetogoanywhere,thebarbedwire
remainsinvisible.Worse,theresnoonetoblame:certainlynotGoogle,
DickCheney,ortheNSA.Itstheresultofmanydifferentlogicsand
systemsofmoderncapitalism,ofbureaucraticgovernance,ofrisk
managementthatgetsuperchargedbytheautomationofinformation
processingandbythedepoliticizationofpolitics.
Themoreinformationwerevealaboutourselves,thedenserbutmore

invisiblethisbarbedwirebecomes.Wegraduallyloseourcapacitytoreason
anddebate;wenolongerunderstandwhythingshappentous.
Butallisnotlost.Wecouldlearntoperceiveourselvesastrappedwithin
thisbarbedwireandevencutthroughit.Privacyistheresourcethatallows
ustodothatand,shouldwebesolucky,eventoplanourescaperoute.
ThisiswhereSimitisexpressedatrulyrevolutionaryinsightthatislostin
contemporaryprivacydebates:noprogresscanbeachieved,hesaid,aslong
asprivacyprotectionismoreorlessequatedwithanindividualsrightto
decidewhenandwhichdataaretobeaccessible.Thetrapthatmanywell
meaningprivacyadvocatesfallintoisthinkingthatifonlytheycould
providetheindividualwithmorecontroloverhisorherdatathrough
strongerlawsorarobustpropertyregimethentheinvisiblebarbedwire
wouldbecomevisibleandfray.Itwontnotifthatdataiseventually
returnedtotheveryinstitutionsthatareerectingthewirearoundus.
Thinkofprivacyinethicalterms.
Ifweacceptprivacyasaproblemofandfordemocracy,thenpopularfixes
areinadequate.Forexample,inhisbookWhoOwnstheFuture?,Jaron
Lanierproposesthatwedisregardonepoleofprivacythelegaloneand
focusontheeconomiconeinstead.Commercialrightsarebettersuitedfor
themultitudeofquirkylittlesituationsthatwillcomeupinreallifethan
newkindsofcivilrightsalongthelinesofdigitalprivacy,hewrites.On
thislogic,byturningourdataintoanassetthatwemightsell,we
accomplishtwothings.First,wecancontrolwhohasaccesstoit,and
second,wecanmakeupforsomeoftheeconomiclossescausedbythe
disruptionofeverythinganalog.
Laniersproposalisnotoriginal.InCodeandOtherLawsofCyberspace
(firstpublishedin1999),LawrenceLessigenthusedaboutbuildinga
propertyregimearoundprivatedata.Lessigwantedanelectronicbutler
thatcouldnegotiatewithwebsites:Theusersetsherpreferencesonce
specifieshowshewouldnegotiateprivacyandwhatsheiswillingtogiveup
andfromthatmomenton,whensheentersasite,thesiteandhermachine
negotiate.Onlyifthemachinescanagreewillthesitebeabletoobtainher
personaldata.

Itseasytoseewheresuchreasoningcouldtakeus.Wedallhave
customizedsmartphoneappsthatwouldcontinuallyincorporatethelatest
informationaboutthepeoplewemeet,theplaceswevisit,andthe
informationwepossessinordertoupdatethepriceofourpersonaldata
portfolio.Itwouldbeextremelydynamic:ifyouarewalkingbyafancy
storesellingjewelry,thestoremightbewillingtopaymoretoknowyour
spousesbirthdaythanitiswhenyouaresittingathomewatchingTV.
Thepropertyregimecan,indeed,strengthenprivacy:ifconsumerswanta
goodreturnontheirdataportfolio,theyneedtoensurethattheirdataisnot
alreadyavailableelsewhere.ThustheyeitherrentitthewayNetflixrents
moviesorsellitontheconditionthatitcanbeusedorresoldonlyunder
tightlycontrolledconditions.Somecompaniesalreadyofferdatalockers
tofacilitatesuchsecureexchanges.
Soifyouwanttodefendtherighttoprivacyforitsownsake,turningdata
intoatradableassetcouldresolveyourmisgivings.TheNSAwouldstillget
whatitwanted;butifyoureworriedthatourprivateinformationhas
becometooliquidandthatwevelostcontroloveritsmovements,asmart
businessmodel,coupledwithastrongdigitalrightsmanagementregime,
couldfixthat.
Meanwhile,governmentagenciescommittedtonannystatecraftwould
wantthisdataaswell.Perhapstheymightpayasmallfeeorpromiseatax

creditfortheprivilegeofnudgingyoulateronwiththehelpofthedata
fromyoursmartphone.Consumerswin,entrepreneurswin,technocratswin.
Privacy,inonewayoranother,ispreservedalso.Sowho,exactly,loses
here?IfyouvereadyourSimitis,youknowtheanswer:democracydoes.
Itsnotjustbecausetheinvisiblebarbedwirewouldremain.Wealsoshould
worryabouttheimplicationsforjusticeandequality.Forexample,my
decisiontodisclosepersonalinformation,evenifIdiscloseitonlytomy
insurancecompany,willinevitablyhaveimplicationsforotherpeople,many
ofthemlesswelloff.Peoplewhosaythattrackingtheirfitnessorlocationis
merelyanaffirmativechoicefromwhichtheycanoptouthavelittle
knowledgeofhowinstitutionsthink.Oncethereareenoughearlyadopters
whoselftrackandmostofthemarelikelytogainsomethingfromit
thosewhorefusewillnolongerbeseenasjustquirkyindividualsexercising
theirautonomy.No,theywillbeconsidereddeviantswithsomethingto
hide.Theirinsurancewillbemoreexpensive.Ifweneverlosesightofthis
fact,ourdecisiontoselftrackwontbeaseasytoreducetopureeconomic
selfinterest;atsomepoint,moralconsiderationsmightkickin.DoIreally
wanttosharemydataandgetacouponIdonotneedifitmeansthat
someoneelsewhoisalreadyworkingthreejobsmayultimatelyhavetopay
more?Suchmoralconcernsarerenderedmootifwedelegatedecision
makingtoelectronicbutlers.
Fewofushavehadmoralpangsaboutdatasharingschemes,butthatcould
change.Beforetheenvironmentbecameaglobalconcern,fewofusthought
twiceabouttakingpublictransportifwecoulddrive.Beforeethical
consumptionbecameaglobalconcern,noonewouldhavepaidmorefor
coffeethattastedthesamebutpromisedfairtrade.ConsideracheapT
shirtyouseeinastore.Itmightbeperfectlylegaltobuyit,butafterdecades
ofhardworkbyactivistgroups,aMadeinBangladeshlabelmakesus
thinktwiceaboutdoingso.Perhapswefearthatitwasmadebychildrenor
exploitedadults.Or,havingthoughtaboutit,maybeweactuallydowantto
buytheTshirtbecausewehopeitmightsupporttheworkofachildwho
wouldotherwisebeforcedintoprostitution.Whatistherightthingtodo
here?Wedontknowsowedosomeresearch.Suchscrutinycantapplyto
everythingwebuy,orwedneverleavethestore.Butexchangesof
informationtheoxygenofdemocraticlifeshouldfallintothecategoryof
Applymorethought,notless.Itsnotsomethingtobedelegatedtoan
electronicbutlernotifwedontwanttocleanseourlifeofitspolitical
dimension.

Sabotagethesystem.Provokemorequestions.
Weshouldalsobetroubledbythesuggestionthatwecanreducetheprivacy
problemtothelegaldimension.Thequestionwevebeenaskingforthelast
twodecadesHowcanwemakesurethatwehavemorecontroloverour
personalinformation?cannotbetheonlyquestiontoask.Unlesswelearn
andcontinuouslyrelearnhowautomatedinformationprocessingpromotes
andimpedesdemocraticlife,ananswertothisquestionmightprove
worthless,especiallyifthedemocraticregimeneededtoimplement
whateveranswerwecomeupwithunravelsinthemeantime.
Intellectually,atleast,itsclearwhatneedstobedone:wemustconfrontthe
questionnotonlyintheeconomicandlegaldimensionsbutalsoina
politicalone,linkingthefutureofprivacywiththefutureofdemocracyina
waythatrefusestoreduceprivacyeithertomarketsortolaws.Whatdoes
thisphilosophicalinsightmeaninpractice?

First,wemustpoliticizethedebateaboutprivacyandinformationsharing.
Articulatingtheexistenceandtheprofoundpoliticalconsequencesofthe
invisiblebarbedwirewouldbeagoodstart.Wemustscrutinizedata
intensiveproblemsolvingandexposeitsoccasionallyantidemocratic
character.Attimesweshouldacceptmorerisk,imperfection,improvisation,
andinefficiencyinthenameofkeepingthedemocraticspiritalive.
Second,wemustlearnhowtosabotagethesystemperhapsbyrefusingto

selftrackatall.Ifrefusingtorecordourcalorieintakeorourwhereaboutsis
theonlywaytogetpolicymakerstoaddressthestructuralcausesof
problemslikeobesityorclimatechangeandnotjusttinkerwiththeir
symptomsthroughnudginginformationboycottsmightbejustifiable.
Refusingtomakemoneyoffyourowndatamightbeaspoliticalanactas
refusingtodriveacaroreatmeat.Privacycanthenremergeasapolitical
instrumentforkeepingthespiritofdemocracyalive:wewantprivatespaces
becausewestillbelieveinourabilitytoreflectonwhatailstheworldand
findawaytofixit,andwedrathernotsurrenderthiscapacitytoalgorithms
andfeedbackloops.
Third,weneedmoreprovocativedigitalservices.Itsnotenoughfora
websitetopromptustodecidewhoshouldseeourdata.Insteaditshould
reawakenourownimaginations.Designedright,siteswouldnotnudge
citizenstoeitherguardorsharetheirprivateinformationbutwouldreveal
thehiddenpoliticaldimensionstovariousactsofinformationsharing.We
dontwantanelectronicbutlerwewantanelectronicprovocateur.Instead
ofyetanotherappthatcouldtellushowmuchmoneywecansaveby
monitoringourexerciseroutine,weneedanappthatcantellushowmany
peoplearelikelytolosehealthinsuranceiftheinsuranceindustryhasas
muchdataastheNSA,mostofitcontributedbyconsumerslikeus.
Eventuallywemightdiscernsuchdimensionsonourown,withoutany
technologicalprompts.
Finally,wehavetoabandonfixedpreconceptionsabouthowourdigital
servicesworkandinterconnect.Otherwise,wellfallvictimtothesame
logicthathasconstrainedtheimaginationofsomanywellmeaningprivacy
advocateswhothinkthatdefendingtherighttoprivacynotfightingto
preservedemocracyiswhatshoulddrivepublicpolicy.Whilemany
Internetactivistswouldsurelyargueotherwise,whathappenstotheInternet
isofonlysecondaryimportance.Justaswithprivacy,itsthefateof
democracyitselfthatshouldbeourprimarygoal.
Afterall,backin1967PaulBaranwasluckyenoughnottoknowwhatthe
Internetwouldbecome.Thatdidntstophimfromseeingthebenefitsof
utilitycomputinganditsdangers.AbandontheideathattheInternetfell
fromgraceoverthelastdecade.Liberatingourselvesfromthatmisreading
ofhistorycouldhelpusaddresstheantidemocraticthreatsofthedigital
future.

EvgenyMorozovistheauthorofTheNetDelusion:TheDarkSideof
InternetFreedomandToSaveEverything,ClickHere:TheFollyof
TechnologicalSolutionism.