The article presented by Palmer is about Europe’s new General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR. The GDPR is a set of rules to give citizens in the European Union more control over their data by informing local businesses that they have to ensure their customer’s data is gathered through safe measures while also simplifying the regulations to make it easy for the companies to follow. Palmer’s article discusses how GDPR gives the consumers power over their data. Like the ability to be forgotten and how their data. His article also goes over how GDPR will affect business. The new regulation makes protecting consumers’ data more straightforward and cheaper by being the one law in the continent and having a single set of rules. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that ethics of care shows that the United States should follow Europe’s law when it comes to protecting people’s privacy.

The Zimmer reading went over a research study titled Tastes, Ties, and Time. During the fall of 2008, the T3 project consisted of a few researchers associated with the Berkman Center of Intern and Society by creating a dataset that consisted of a large quantity of profile information from Facebook accounts that included many college students from Harvard. The research study collected data from college students over four years. Zimmer goes over how the research was conducted and how it violated the students’ involved privacy. There were two concepts Zimmer brings up in his paper that I will be using in my analysis harm-based theory and dignity-based theory of privacy.

In Zimmer’s paper, he mentions some of the comments from people that questioned the research study. One of the commenters, Kaufman, notes,” What might hackers want to do with this information?” Kaufman commented on someone attacking the dataset. Zimmer says that it exposes a harm-based theory of privacy protection. Zimmer’s definition of harm-based theory is that as long as the data is protected from hackers or any other entity wanting to gain access, people’s privacy can be maintained. Zimmer goes on and says that this theory ignores the principles of the dignity-based theory of privacy. In Zimmer’s paper, he notes that the meaning of dignity-based theory as no one has to be a victim of a cyberattack for there to be any concern for their privacy. Rather than once someone’s personal information is taken from their social media account or any other social sphere and put into a database for public view becomes a violation of someone’s dignity and ability to control their data.          

Using the topics in Zimmer’s paper, we can analyze why the United States should adopt Europe’s new privacy protection law. The United States should adopt this law because many of the companies that operate here in the US seem to have a harm-based viewpoint on how to protect people’s privacy. What I mean by that is that time and time again, we see privacy breaches from many of these companies. It doesn’t matter who or what causes it; the breaches come from social media companies all the way to grocery store giants. The reason for that is because of the loose and non-strict laws we have here. California’s the only state whose laws protect people’s privacy, even though the CCPA has some loopholes and isn’t as strict as the GDPR. The United States should adopt the EU GDPR as it will make these protect people’s privacy from a dignity-based viewpoint on protecting people’s privacy.

Utilitarianism shows us why the United States should adopt the GDPR or something like it. As utilitarianism states, the consequences of one’s activities should be more positive than negative, or that the actions of individuals should be focused on happiness rather than the suffering of one or more people. I believe that many of the companies operating in the United States don’t test their security measures to see how they will perform if under an actual attack and how specific attacks would affect their consumers. When a company has an information breach, people’s information is then usually sold, from email and phone numbers to social security numbers. This, in turn, causes many Americans stress and suffering. If the United States were to adopt the European Union GDPR, many companies would be obligated to test out their security measures to ensure that their system will protect people’s personal information in case of a real situation. Utilitarianism says that one should try to deter the happening of pain or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered.

The following paper I will be using is “Considering the ethics of big data research: A case of Twitter and ISIS/ISIL.” by Elizbeth Buchanan. One of the ideas that Buchanan brings up is the IVCC model. The IVCC model or also known as the Iterative Vertex Clustering and Classification model is a data search method mentioned by Matthew Curran Benigni, Kenneth Joseph, and Kathleen Carley that can locate the supporters of ISIS or ISIL; this tool is used on Twitter and many other social media accounts. The use of IVCC helps with identifying social media users faster and easier, no matter how large the data set is. Benigni uses their large data sets to be available for the researchers, law enforcement, and others, identifying those vulnerable to or suspectable to be a part of the groups. Benigni and the group’s reason for and implementation of IVCC is ethical as it isn’t picking private information, only the information presented on the user’s social media. It is also used to protect and benefit many.

In the case of why the United States should adopt GDPR, Buchanan’s paper could be a reason why the United States wouldn’t adopt the privacy law as it would be hard to implement or even do anything using anything like the IVCC model. As the IVCC model protects and prevents any national security. Even though IVCC doesn’t use anyone’s private information from people, just the information they put on their social media and the information collected from the IVCC can only be viewed by those authorized to view it. But it doesn’t mean everyone will follow protocols. Someone can mess up one step or leave their workstation open, which could expose a lot of people’s social media accounts. Also, the IVCC could also enable or allow the local government agency or local law enforcement to spy on its citizens. This is why something like the GDPR needs to be implemented to not only help local businesses but also law enforcement on how to handle and maintain privacy over people’s information.

When it comes to this case and analyzing it, Utilitarianism shows us why the United States should implement a law like the GDPR. As Utilitarianism states that we should do whatever results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people., I say that Utilitarianism and Consequentialism show us that the United States should follow Europe’s system because it centers around privacy, not profit. Many organizations don’t invest the money to protect people’s information simply because they would rather keep that money in their pockets. Many organizations build systems that benefit them more than the consumers. If the United States were to create a law like the GDPR, it would benefit everyone in the United States. The citizens would be able to control how their data is used and to be forgotten. It would also help many organizations and local agencies by providing a much more streamlined way to protect people’s information. I don’t believe that if a law like the GDPR was implemented, the IVCC shouldn’t be stopped or disabled as they are very beneficial, but the law should be expanded and cover how applications like the IVCC should be handled. So the agencies who use them to stay honest and keep people’s information safe.

If the United States were to implement a law like the GDPR, it would benefit both businesses and citizens. Now there would be some pushback from both sides. Some companies and organizations would be against the law because maybe they know they wouldn’t be able to comply with the regulations and wouldn’t want to face the consequences. Some wouldn’t want it to be implemented because it could cause them to be unable to sell consumer information to third-party entities. The citizens of the United States would be against it as they fill it would be the government’s way of gaining more power. The most crucial thing analyzed from this is that users shouldn’t be misinterpreted. Proper guidelines and information should be provided to them. Violation of rights should be observed; their data protection is the company’s responsibility from products or the social apps they provide. Governments like the US should take action and make laws, as personal data or information should not be withdrawn without their consent. It would be best for the US to opt for the same privacy law to protect users’ information.