User Data Case Analysis

In May 0f 2018, the European Union adopted a new set of regulations regarding their activity on user data called GDPR. GDPR stands for General Data Protection Regulation, it is now the core of Europe’s digital privacy legislation. It created a framework on how organizations should deal with consumer information. It details how companies must comply with their rules with the way they store, use, and communicate with users regarding their personal data. Not only does this framework expand across the landmass of Europe, but it travels way across the border. GDPR applies to any organization operating outside of Europe that offers goods or services to customers in the continent. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that deontology shows that the United States should follow Europe’s lead in protecting user data because it is the right thing to do. The United States is responsible for protecting consumer information as much as Europe. We are just as advanced in technology, and we have the same resources available to
fulfill this obligation of the people.

The first article I will use is from Michael Zimmer called “But the data is already public”. Zimmer’s main discussion topic was the T3 project, also known as the “Taste, Ties, and Time” project created by professors and graduate students. This project was orchestrated by researchers who constructed a dataset that consisted of a large quantity of profile information from Facebook accounts that included many Harvard students. Instead of using e private data for their own benefits, they took every step-in order to ensure that the information collected was safeguarded. This strategy backfired, because the source of each student’s data was easily identified and traced back to their college (Harvard). The researchers decided to withdraw their dataset and tried to make the information available the following year. They came to the conclusion and understood that there was a flaw in their project. They later faced issues involving the students being worried about their personal information being easily accessed and obtainable online. Even though the T3 project was a failure, the idea and base of the study was important. The people involved in the research cared about the study and the privacy of the students who participated in the project. Individuals who believe in deontology, believe that there are three major principles of decision making. You should make a decision with intrinsic morality, duty of care, and the moral consequence of an action. The researchers involved were responsible for the student’s data being accessed, and even though their intentions were not bad – they were still wrong. I think the researchers in the study acted with a duty of care regarding the participants’ privacy because they decided to put a halt to the project. They could have continued with the project and ran the risk of the data being compromised and misused completely, but they understood that the students displayed discomfort with their information posted. The researchers made a good call to take the project down, and they recognized that their intentions for conducting the study was good. The student’s privacy and comfort were more important to them, then running the risk of losing that to obtain business or financial gains. Like GDPR, not only do organizations have to ensure that personal data is gathered legally and under strict conditions, but those who collect and manage it are obliged to protect it from misuse and exploitation, as well as to respect the rights of data owners – or face penalties for not doing so. The researchers’ decisions were close to the European unions. I hope that one day policyholders could act like the researchers in this project, because the public only sees decisions that will help upper-class or businessmen. Moreover, I think that lawmakers in America can learn from this because they should make all decisions regarding the people’s best interest; no matter the money that could be obtained! It seems like they make laws to play this game of monopoly at the cost of lower- and middle-class individual’s expense. The privacy laws that our government has created does an okay job in my opinion on protecting citizens, because the businesses tend to exploit consumers in the end and always gain a financial profit off them.

The second article I will be using for some key concepts to help further prove my argument. The article is called “Considering the ethics of big data research: A case of twitter and ISIS/ILIL”, by Elizabeth Banchan. In her article she discussed the IVCC model on Facebook, also known as the Iterative Vertex Clustering and Classification model, which shows a data research method presented to locate supporters of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms. The method created by researchers allowed them to identify any individual or group on social media platforms. They could skim these networks and retrieve data in a way that law enforcement or intelligence agencies could adapt in order to identify suspicious activities or communication on these platforms for security reasons. The IVCC details an approach to identify individuals or groups using software. This software could be used in the near future for good purposes, but it always could run the risk of being harmful. If this software got in the hands of a person with malicious intent, or accidently identified the wrong person then that would be a huge problem. This software method could also allow the government to easily spy on individuals via social media. They could use this method of research to gain information on individuals and businesses for financial gain or personal benefit. They could use this software to focus on innocent people, and not even study the individuals that they claimed to focus on or use their authority to detain anyone they suspect to be apart of ISIS or IVCC. If law enforcement hadn’t used the IVCC approach to track down and identify ISIL supporters or members, the individuals who are threatening our security would have had the upper hand. Employees and authorities may be considering the larger benefit of not only the people on Twitter, but the entire country of the United States of America. This also ties into my argument regarding deontology because law enforcement has two choices to make. They could use this software for moral reasons and do their job correctly by taking the criminals off the street and protecting the citizens. On the other hand, they could abuse this power to spy and capture individuals that could be innocent meaning their privacy will be revoked and safety risked. Law enforcement would have to make the right decision because they technically already have the moral obligation of our society to protect innocent (even criminals to a certain extent) and know right from wrong. In America, we already have a history of our police being corrupt when it comes to brutality, funding, etc. If the US adopted Europe’s regulation law regarding user data then that would help not only law enforcement but also citizens with a piece of mind and less crime. With a clear framework, it would be hard for a business or person to say they did not know or be confused with what is right or wrong.

The United States should adopt or construct their own set of privacy laws like Europe. We should create something very similar to the General Data Protection Regulation in order to ensure that our people are protected when it comes down to their personal data. The data could consist of anything from their personal name, address, IP address, genetics, biometric data, or photos. We could take their framework completely or pull principles to form our own, but I think that something needs to get done now. With technology becoming more advanced, it will be a slap in the face to citizens if it took a catastrophic event regarding user data to happen for lawmakers to step up. On television, we see the government argue back and forth about overturning old policies and things that don’t relatively matter. We all use some form of technology everyday, and our country needs to uphold their obligation to protect us. In this case
analysis, I argued that deontology further proves that America should follow Europe’s lead in creating a policy to protect consumers information. In Europe they focus on privacy over profit, and I understand that America is the capitalist land of the free by any means. However, they should put their citizens first this time and do what is right to ensure that the public is not being taken advantage of and protected.