Text size

The time of dreams


About the Author: Susan ariel aaronson is a research professor in international affairs at George Washington University, where she heads the Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub.

At the request of the United States, representatives from 100 countries will meet online Thursday and Friday to discuss how they can support democracy. The Democracy Summit has a busy agenda but ignores a major threat: Businesses in the United States and elsewhere are using large amounts of personal data to manipulate our behavior, which is directly and indirectly in danger our autonomy, our human rights and our democracy. This threat to democracy was and continues to be made in America, and America’s allies know it.

Americans have developed, funded and perpetuated a new economic sector based on the analysis of personal data. In return for free services, users grant companies such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook control over their shared personal data for use and reuse. These companies collect and monetize this data to create new products and services. They also sell their analytics and sometimes datasets to a wide variety of government and corporate clients. Harvard scholar Shoshana Zuboff calls these practices surveillance capitalismbecause these companies “repackage personal data into prediction products for customers who want to know how we think, what we will do in the future, and even how we vote.” These practices undermine political and social stability. If individuals can be easily manipulated, whether through advertising or divisive content, they are less able to participate effectively in democracy and trust their fellow citizens.

The economic model is also an indirect threat to democracy. Businesses and individuals can mix treasures of personal data with other datasets to reveal information about a regime or society, from confidence level to troop movements. This reliance on personal data poses a threat on many levels to democracies around the world.

The public is concerned about these practices. In 2019, the Pew Research Center found that many people fear their data will be used without their consent and fear that companies will use their customers’ personal data to discriminate and manipulate them. But at the same time, users are will not to leave these companies because they (and their networks of friends, relatives and colleagues) depend on them.

Some companies appear to be reducing their dependence on these business practices. Apple, for example, uses transparency to allow consumers to avoid apps that abuse their personal data. In November, Facebook announced the shutdown of its facial recognition system. Users who have chosen (accepted) facial recognition will no longer be automatically recognized in photos and videos. The company, now called Meta, will wipe off over a billion individual facial recognition models until regulatory policies clarify how the business can use that data. It’s a start, but it doesn’t change the big picture: Companies like this continue to undermine democracy by exploiting personal data. The US government recognizes the threat. In its 2021 report, the US National Intelligence Council warned that in the future, “privacy and anonymity could effectively disappear by government choice or mandate … Real-time, fabricated, or man-made media could further distort truth and reality, destabilizing societies at a scale and speed that eclipses the current challenges of disinformation.

American policymakers are divided on how to solve this problem and have focused their efforts on a law on the protection of personal data and on reducing the monopoly power of these companies. But they did not tackle the economic model head-on for several reasons. First the the pandemic highlighted the global level dependence on the biggest tech companies. Second, the U.S. government relies on these same companies for expertise, research, products, and services in areas such as nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, extended reality, the Internet of Things, technologies. quantum, autonomous vehicles and beyond. Not surprisingly, some officials are concerning that additional regulation could weaken the innovative capacity of these firms, in turn reducing the competitiveness and defensive preparedness of the United States. (EU officials have similar concerns.) Nonetheless, in October 2021, the Justice Department, joined by 11 states, launched a federal antitrust prosecution against Google alleging abuse of its online search monopoly. The Federal Trade Commission has filed a trial against Facebook for what its allegedly anti-competitive actions, joined by a costume of 48 attorneys general.

Given these different perspectives, the United States is sending mixed signals to its allies, including those it is gathering online this week. On the one hand, the United States is trying to promote international cooperation to curb these companies. He is work with the European Union on a Trade and Technology Council, and a broader coalition of allies on a common approach to competition policies and data governance through entities such as the OECD and the G7. And Congress is trying to pass a national privacy law.

But the US government is also actively trying to weaken the regulation of these companies and their practices in other countries. For example, Reuters reported in November as U.S. government officials spoke out against draft EU rules, which are designed to create more competition and facilitate data portability. The United States has reportedly argued that requiring US tech giants to share information with their competitors could endanger the intellectual property and trade secrets of companies. The United States has also tried to sweeten the UK’s approach to personal data protection. Finally, while Congress holds hearings on the monopoly power of these companies, on data brokers and anti-competitive practices, it has done little to encourage these companies to rethink their use of personal data or to examine how these practices can indirectly or directly affect human action and democracy. in general.

There appears to be little chance that this week’s summit will resolve any of these concerns. The White House had planned to deploy a new coalition in favor of a free and open Internet on the sidelines of the summit. But this plan was apparently shot at the last moment, “following a substantial setback by major digital rights groups,” Protocol reported.

America’s muddled approach should end now if we are to make these businesses – and democracy – to thrive. Congress must pass laws that require personal data to be protected from abuse and hold businesses accountable for inadequate cybersecurity. We need to push the data giants to find new ways to fund their services. Finally, we must build on the long history of global cooperation to resolve cross-border threats. The Biden administration is expected to begin brainstorming this week with its allies.

Guest comments like this are written by authors outside of the Barron’s and MarketWatch newsroom. They reflect the views and opinions of the authors. Submit comments and other comments to [email protected].