Page 90 - AEI Insights 2019 - Vol. 5, Issue 1

AEI Insights, Vol 5, Issue 1, 2019

apply to every societal stakeholder but themselves. And citizenry by large too frequently
behave benevolent, nearly careless whether their data is harvested or safeguarded at all.
However, such legislation is needed today more than ever before. The latest round of
technological advancements was rapid, global and uneven. No wonder that in the aftermath of
the so-called IT-revolutions, our world suffers from technological asymmetries: assertive big
corporations and omnipresent mighty governments on one side and ordinary citizenry on the
other. Even in the most advanced democracies today – such as the EU, personal autonomy is
at the huge risk: Everyday simple, almost trivial, choices such as what to read, which road to
take, what to wear, eat, watch or listen are governed (or at least filtered) by algorithms that run
deep under the surface of software and devices. Algoritmisation of ‘will’ is so corrosive and
deep that users are mostly unaware of the magnitude to which daily data processing rules over
their passions, drives and choices.
Clearly, technology of today serves not only a Weberian predictability imperative – to further
rationalise society. It makes society less safe and its individuals less free.
Societies are yet to wake up to this (inconvenient) truth. In the internet age of mobile, global
and instant communications, people tend to focus more on the ‘here-us-now’ trends: goods,
services, and experiences that the IT offers. Individuals are less interested on the ways in which
privacy is compromised by software, its originators and devices – all which became an
unnoticed but indispensable part of modern life. Despite a wish of many to grasp and know
how data processing and harvesting affects them, population at large yet has no appetite for
details.
But, the trend is here to stay – a steady erosion of privacy: bigger quantities of data are
harvested about larger number of persons on a daily, if not hourly basis. Corporations and the
central state authorities want more data and are less shy in how they obtain and use it.
Prevention of the personal information misuse (PIM) —intended or not—is the main reason
the European Union (EU) introduced the new set of provisions, as of May 2018. Hence, the
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – as the legislation is known – is an ambitious
attempt to further regulate digital technology, especially in respect to the private data
protection. It is of course in conformity with provisions of both the Universal and European
Charter of Human Rights, which hold the protection of human dignity and privacy as an
indispensable, fundamental human right.

The intention of legislator behind the GDPR is twofold: to regulate domestically as well as to
inspire and galvanise internationally. The GDPR is meant to open a new chapter in the
Internet’s history at home, while creating, at the same time, a roadmap for other state and
corporate sector actors beyond the EU. The challenge is clear: to reconcile the rights of
individuals to data protection with the legitimate interests of business and government.
For the rest of the world, the GDPR should be predictive, inspirational and eventually
obligational. Lack of acting now could open a space for the abuse of power – be it for
illegitimate corporate or authoritarian gains of the hidden societal actors. In such a negative
scenario – on a long run – losers are all. Historically, victimisation of individuals (through
constant suspension of liberties and freedoms) ends up in a state or corporate fascism, and that
one in a self-destruction of society as whole.

90