Sustainability of Data Rights

The research that I am conducting is on the sustainability of Data Rights as well as

why and how we should prevent these companies from collecting and using our personal data without consent. In my proposal, I discussed why Data Rights sustainability is such an important topic in the world right now, and many of those reasons referenced information pertaining to either Google’s or Facebook’s data collection practices. I mentioned that it was crucial to fight for these rights now before we lose our opportunity due to the normalization of the practice of infringing on them. But, in an information space with very little tangible evidence, by virtue of these companies not being monitored, a central discussion point of both my research proposal and my final problem/solution essay is the Cambridge Analytica whistleblowing. This event played a crucial role in exposing these types of business practices that infringe on our Data Rights and presented a compelling argument to the public that this was an issue that needed to be taken on at full force. However, when the media spotlights dimmed and shifted to the next hot story, nothing was done and the problem of non-consensual data collection persisted to this day. As I have carried out my research process, I have run into several roadblocks that have directed and redirected my point of focus in trying to find a feasible solution for this problem. These obstacles have not deterred my interest because I truly believe that the sustainability of Data Rights is one of the most important courses of action that could be taken at this crucial transitional point in the public’s relationship with these technological behemoths.

​

One of the most prevalent and bothersome obstructions to my research I have

experienced thus far is the lack of information and sources on the gathering and selling of personal data because of the difficulty in monitoring the companies that are doing the collecting. This difficulty of monitoring presented itself as a separate issue later in my research while I was brainstorming possible solutions for the issue. Any solution I could think of relies on the ability of the government or some other administrative body being able to monitor the activity of these companies to ensure that they are following a piece of legislation created to protect the data rights of people. This problem is still at the forefront of my research and will likely be the largest hurdle I will have to conquer throughout my entire project. Additionally, the technological world is so fast-paced and ever-changing that there are few to no academic analyses on the topic of Data Rights and personal data collection because these things have only emerged in the last five to ten years, or so. As a result of the scarcity of reliable and scholarly sources on this topic, I have been lead to rely on a relatively small number of sources compared to what others may have access to for their respective topics. One source that has proved to be a treasured window into the convoluted and hidden world of institutional, non-consensual data collection is the interrogation and testimony of Mark Zuckerberg before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Commerce. The reason this particular source is so valuable is that it is one of the few reports of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, given under oath, that is publically available. The importance of the available information on these companies like Facebook and Cambridge Analytica cannot be overstated because of this lack of sources. As a result of this, it can be difficult to seem like I am giving a comprehensive analysis of the issue in my project.

​

Other than the major hindrance of not being able to find sufficient scholarly

sources, the research process of my project went fairly smoothly, but an issue I am now dealing with when it comes to formulating my argument is, due to the limited amount of sources I have to work with, finding it difficult to feel like I am writing a holistic essay. For example, a large part of my research has been centered around Cambridge Analytica and its role in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Race as well as its role in the 2016 Brexit Referendum. This isn’t because all other examples don’t support my claim-- although that’s how it might come off-- it is because this is nearly the only example eligible for a deep analysis of this level that is also relevant to the audience of my paper. There are plenty of companies that have been caught or admit to buying, selling, and using consumer data, but this is one of the only times we get to see what the data is used for. The fact that this scandal can both provide an insight into the world behind the screens, while also allowing me to present the information in a way that is pertinent and understandable to the average reader, makes sources on it invaluable.

​

In my research for a solution, I have concluded that the only feasible way to

prevent these companies from infringing on the public’s Data Rights would be to pass legislation that would require companies to allow people to opt-out of data collection. This could be coupled with stipulations about how they could use the data after they collect it and possibly require these companies to disclose that information as well, so people can make more informed decisions when it comes to the safety and protection of their personal information and Data Rights. Seeing as right now there is no single piece of the digital privacy legislation in the federal law of the U.S., but there is a smattering of well over 100 laws and policies that range from federal to local governments, a single, all-encompassing piece of cyber-privacy and Data Rights protection legislation seems like a good place to start. While I was researching, I began to wonder why legislation like this hasn’t been passed already, especially in the wake of such a large scandal, like that of Cambridge Analytica. After a little more research I found my answer: lobbying. In just the years 2018 (the year of the scandal) and 2019 alone, Facebook and Google combined to spend almost fifty million dollars lobbying for and against certain internet regulations. These years, 2018 more-so than 2019, are enormous outliers when compared to the same companies’ spendings from years prior. This is where the second major roadblock of my project can be seen. In the current political environment, it would be very difficult to have legislation akin to what I am suggesting get passed into law. This is simply because the corporations it is affecting are some of the richest in the world and can afford to stop bills like this in their tracks.

​

However, there is hope. In 2020, a law in California will be enacted called the

California Consumer Privacy Act and it accomplishes pretty much exactly what I am trying to do with this project. It gives people the right to see where their data goes, the ability to prevent companies from collecting their data, and outlaws the discrimination against those that are exercising their Privacy and Data Rights. Seeing a bill like this on a state scale, especially in a state as technologically booming as California, is the light at the end of the tunnel. My plan for the rest of my research is going to be looking into this legislation, as well as digital privacy legislation in India, the EU, and other countries of the world, and using them as models for what kind of Data Rights legislation could be passed in the U.S. to sustain Data Rights for generations to come.

​

The idea of Data Rights is one that is integral to true freedom of thought, and if

nothing is done to preserve them, we may lose them altogether. That was my claim at the end of my research proposal, and after a month and a half of research, I still stand by it. In fact, I believe it to be truer than ever. My research began as an exploration of the ethics of using data in these ways, but it has since transformed into a call to action to try to prevent these unethical practices from continuing to take place. I have done my best to holistically analyze the argument both from the perspective of the consumer and the organization. From both perspectives, it makes sense of the organization to be transparent with its consumer, so long as the organization’s usage of the data is ethical. This is to say the only situation where it strictly benefits the organization not disclose their usage of the data is if their practices are unethical. People deserve a right to make an informed decision about the self-determination of their digital lives, and the only way to ensure that choice is available for future generations is through governmental regulation forcing these companies to divulge this information.