{"id":316,"date":"2026-08-19T03:29:36","date_gmt":"2026-08-19T03:29:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ctreed-cyse200\/?page_id=316"},"modified":"2026-08-19T03:30:48","modified_gmt":"2026-08-19T03:30:48","slug":"private-data-why-the-eu-is-doing-better-than-the-united-states","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ctreed-cyse200\/law-ethics\/phil-355e\/private-data-why-the-eu-is-doing-better-than-the-united-states\/","title":{"rendered":"Private Data, Why the EU is Doing Better Than the United States"},"content":{"rendered":"

In an article discussing the European Union\u2019s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Danny <\/span>Palmer discusses the many ways the GDPR empowers ordinary citizens to take control of their private <\/span>data. In a first of its kind regulation, the GDPR looks to hold organizations more accountable and provide <\/span>additional avenues to pursue legal action for EU citizens. While in stark contrast, The United States <\/span>appears to have a less than desirable structured approach to protecting citizens\u2019 private data that seem to <\/span>vary from state to state. Palmer argues that without some sort of adaptation of the GDPR in the United <\/span>States, there will forever remain ethical concerns regarding how private data is collected, stored, and <\/span>accessed. For this case analysis, I will utilize a Kantian Deontology perspective to argue that the United <\/span>States should follow the European Union\u2019s lead and adopt similar privacy laws not only because <\/span>individuals deserve to have their privacy respected, but because businesses and organizations have the <\/span>moral obligation to respect the autonomous existence of individuals and place ethics over the pursuit of <\/span>generating profits.<\/span><\/p>\n

The basis of Kantian Deontology, applied to this case analysis, is best explained through the idea that all <\/span>individuals possess inherent moral worth, and in many ways, this can be directly applied to the debate on <\/span>whether or not the U.S should adapt GDPR-like laws to protect its citizens\u2019 personal data. From this <\/span>perspective, the autonomy of an individual should be first respected, protected, and each individual <\/span>should be empowered to maintain meaningful control over the processes of how their information is c<\/span>ollected, stored, and ultimately used. Throughout this analysis, I will explore separate articles that, <\/span>similarly to Palmer, highlight the need for the United States of America to adopt legislation similar to the <\/span>EU in order to advocate and protect the private data of its citizens. Although Palmer\u2019s article is broad in <\/span>scope, there are many intricacies interwoven throughout his points of view. It is through the lens of <\/span>Kantian Deontology along with other contributors that Palmer\u2019s argument becomes united in solidarity in <\/span>the effort to advocate for privacy rights of all of mankind.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Zimmer\u2019s article \u201cBut the Data Is Already Public\u201d, the very ethical dilemma of privacy is highlighted <\/span>with the existence of social media, and what is to reasonably be expected to be private in a public forum <\/span>(such as Facebook). One of the key components of Zimmer\u2019s article is his challenge to the notion that <\/span>posting information on a publicly accessible website does not automatically eliminate the user\u2019s <\/span>expectation of privacy. Zimmer\u2019s main argument towards this concept is that because the information is <\/span>accessible, it does not constitute nor ethically justify the collection and use of said information. Zimmer\u2019s <\/span>concept of public availability not eliminating ethical obligations pairs well with Palmer\u2019s justification of <\/span>adopting GDPR adjacent legislation and policies within the United States. <\/span>Taking this very concept and applying it to this case study, it appears that Zimmer would likely find many j<\/span>ustifications for the GDPR to be adopted and ratified into law. The foundation of Zimmer\u2019s concept <\/span>applies directly to the core principles of the GDPR and why Palmer finds the GDPR to be beneficial to <\/span>United States citizens. Part of Palmer\u2019s arguments in favor of GDPR-like legislation is that individuals <\/span>should have greater control over the protection of their personal information, and provide a means to <\/span>exercise more meaningful control over their data. This directly coincides with Zimmer\u2019s argument that <\/span>the accessibility of information does not necessarily provide an ethical reasoning for its use nor does it <\/span>dissolve the individual’s right to privacy. From the Kant perspective, both the arguments of Palmer and <\/span>Zimmer align under the ethical principle of treating the individual as an end, and not the means of <\/span>potential monetary gain. Both Zimmer\u2019s concept of public data and Kant Deontology would both argue <\/span>that the adaptation of GDPR legislation would likely raise the ethical standards across the board, and <\/span>would ultimately bring about transparency and standardize this practice, while also creating a means to <\/span>hold establishments and organizations accountable.<\/span><\/p>\n

Similarly to Zimmer, Buchanan\u2019s Ethics of Big Data Research cross examines the nuances of ethics <\/span>within the field of data research. While she agrees that the standard ethics involved in its current form are <\/span>likely sub-optimal, Buchanan provides a defensible approach to this dilemma by offering several concepts <\/span>and ideas that further explain the inherent problems with the field itself. Of the many concepts Buchanan o<\/span>ffers, there is one in particular that requires further examination. Her concept of ethical decision-making <\/span>being a continuous process sheds light on one of the most fundamental issues within the field of data <\/span>research ethics. Buchanan argues that as technology continues to evolve, there is a significant ethical <\/span>problem primarily caused by how previously collected data may be re-used, that may have deviated from <\/span>its original and intended use. As a result of this, her stance of businesses having a moral obligation to <\/span>continuously evaluate their ethics with regard to how individuals’ privacy is treated. Consider the <\/span>following: if you were to give your consent to have your data collected only for research purposes at an <\/span>academic institution, and then at some point in the future, that academic institution was then giving your <\/span>private data to additional organizations or businesses, would you have agreed to that in the beginning? <\/span>Does your consent no longer require consignment, and is it freely given to separate purposes years down <\/span>the road? These are the issues Buchanan brings to light, and they directly coincide with what Palmer\u2019s <\/span>data handling concerns are.<\/span><\/p>\n

While Palmer wanted to bring about legislation to protect the individual, Buchanan succinctly pointed out <\/span>the many challenges that legislators would likely face when trying to draft sensible and impactful policies, <\/span>especially as they pertain to enforcing continuous ethical evaluations on how data is handled in the future. <\/span>As technologies continue to advance in just about every field, so does the transmitting of data. While <\/span>GDPR policies would likely create greater protection for individuals\u2019 private information, Buchanan <\/span>would argue that additional ethical protections be considered; additionally, Buchanan would raise ethical <\/span>concerns regarding how original consent is handled as technologies or services evolve from their initial <\/span>conception or agreed upon use. From a Kant perspective, the consent of an individual should not be <\/span>assumed to be given at any point in the future solely because it was given prior. It is quite the opposite; <\/span>Kant would agree with Buchanan that consent is a continuous ethical process to obtain. Individuals must <\/span>be made aware of any sort of deviation from the original intent of their data being used. Similarly to <\/span>Zimmer, Buchanan\u2019s arguments in defense of data protection are highlighting the need of ethical and <\/span>moral obligations from the technology industry to each end-user. Both the concepts of public data consent <\/span>and continuous ethical decision making tie in directly with a fundamental concept from Kantian <\/span>Deontology: individuals should always be treated as ends in themselves rather than a means; by violating <\/span>consent, be it from public posting or repurposing consent, individual autonomy is infringed upon, and this <\/span>violates all moral and ethical rights.<\/span><\/p>\n

Throughout this case analysis, several examples of the many issues involved in protecting individual <\/span>rights were discussed. While things such as social media posting and consent were discussed, the <\/span>overarching theme of the need for legislation is reinforced. Palmer\u2019s argument of adapting the European <\/span>Union\u2019s GDPR policies is further bolstered by Zimmer and Buchanan\u2019s discussion of the importance of <\/span>consent, and the need to enforce accountability should that consent be used in contrast to previously <\/span>agreed upon usage of data. Lastly, the Kant perspective of Palmer\u2019s argument aligns upon the concept that <\/span>each individual should not be used by organizations as means to an end (be it profit or other). While the <\/span>topic of consent is routinely used throughout this article, it is not lost upon me that it is a highly nuanced <\/span>process, and the very implementation of such a mechanism of accountability would likely be of great <\/span>burden to legislators and ultimately the justice system. Much like Palmer, I firmly believe that analyzing <\/span>this case study through Zimmer, Buchanan, and Kant\u2019s perspective affirms that Palmer\u2019s argument is a <\/span>just and correct cause.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In an article discussing the European Union\u2019s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Danny Palmer discusses the many ways the GDPR empowers ordinary citizens to take control of their private data. In a first of its kind regulation, the GDPR looks to hold organizations more accountable and provide additional avenues to pursue legal action for… <\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":27215,"featured_media":0,"parent":207,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ctreed-cyse200\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/316"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ctreed-cyse200\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ctreed-cyse200\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ctreed-cyse200\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/27215"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ctreed-cyse200\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=316"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ctreed-cyse200\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/316\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":317,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ctreed-cyse200\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/316\/revisions\/317"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ctreed-cyse200\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/207"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ctreed-cyse200\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}