In this book, examples are shown to demonstrate various types of risks of privacy posed by technology. The first is the police accessing someone’s data through a list on the phone and making incriminating interpretations; the second is knowing a suspect’s potentially criminal behavior and accessing technological device of the suspect; the third one is accessing data of a suspect while gaining access to other user’s data of the same technological service. A key question discussed in these examples is under what circumstances can the government access individual’s data, to what extent, and with or without permission (such as a warrant). This question is sometimes taken for granted or oversimplified because, as is said in the article and previous readings, data is not as tangible and visible as other objects that are considered as connecting to the privacy of someone. In my opinion, this is another reason why it is important to study and bring to the front the materialistic aspect of data and the mechanisms of how data works. Otherwise, data will stay in the minds of the laypeople who constitute the majority of the public as something that works mysteriously in the clouds, as is promoted by big corporations. Being aware of the materiality of data and its prevalence in people’s everyday life can help people realize its positive and negative impacts – some of them may not even be known. Only when the public have more understanding of data and start using it to serve their life can it really “serve for the public good”. Or they will be some other fancy tools manipulated by the rich and the powerful to exploit the people.

Another issue highlighted in this article is the actor infringes upon the privacy of the public through accessing data without one’s consent. The information of the public is thus not only subject to risks posed by corporations from the private sector, the goal of which is seeking profit, but also to those posed by agencies and organizations in the public sector, such as the government. To what extent can the government represent “the public” and having the right to take what is the public, however intangible that is, for their own purposes. In an age where data has become so closely intertwined with individuals, it is time to redefine what is an individual’s “possessions” and who may have access to them under what circumstances. The role the government plays is not only a guardian angel for the public. It may also violate people’s rights in ways that could never have been imagined. The nature of data as a new form of asset derived from human beings and its potential misuse by power should be aware to ordinary people so that they can be more conscious about protecting themselves in ways they may have not even imagined.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.