Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Business Ethics
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics 3/2021

18.06.2019 | Original Paper

The General Data Protection Regulation in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism

verfasst von: Jane Andrew, Max Baker

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 3/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Clicks, comments, transactions, and physical movements are being increasingly recorded and analyzed by Big Data processors who use this information to trace the sentiment and activities of markets and voters. While the benefits of Big Data have received considerable attention, it is the potential social costs of practices associated with Big Data that are of interest to us in this paper. Prior research has investigated the impact of Big Data on individual privacy rights, however, there is also growing recognition of its capacity to be mobilized for surveillance purposes. Our paper delineates the underlying issues of privacy and surveillance and presents them as in tension with one another. We postulate that efforts at controlling Big Data may create a trade-off of risks rather than an overall improvement in data protection. We explore this idea in relation to the principles of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as it arguably embodies the new ‘gold standard’ of cyber-laws. We posit that safeguards advocated by the law, anonymization and pseudonymization, while representing effective counter measures to privacy concerns, also incentivize the use, collection, and trade of behavioral and other forms of de-identified data. We consider the legal status of these ownerless forms of data, arguing that data protection techniques such as anonymization and pseudonymization raise significant concerns over the ownership of behavioral data and its potential use in the large-scale modification of activities and choices made both on and offline.
Vorheriger Artikel Drivers and Inhibitors of Internet Privacy Concern: A Multidimensional Development Theory Perspective
Nächster Artikel Compliance Dynamism: Capturing the Polynormative and Situational Nature of Business Responses to Law

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
The pithy stave “to be let alone” was originally coined by the then US Supreme court justice Thomas Cooley (1888).
 
2
We refer to these documents as “WP,” see General Data Protection Regulation References for the full citations.
 
3
Data controllers are those individuals or organizations responsible for personal data, and data processors are persons or organizations who use personal data as instructed by data controllers.
 
5
The collection and trade of behavioral data, above the company’s own internal requirements for product and service improvements.
 
6
While the state is still a major facilitator and participant in this surveillance model (West 2017) it is no longer the central player.
 
7
A Latin term that means an object or property outside the legal rights framework.
 
Literatur
Art. 29 WP 55 (2002). Working document on the surveillance of electronic communications in the workplace (No. 5401/01/EN/Final). Brussels, Belgium: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, European Commission, Directorate General Justice.
Art. 29 WP 203 (2013). Opinion 03/2013 on purpose limitation (No. 00569/13/EN). Brussels, Belgium: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, European Commission, Directorate General Justice.
Art. 29 WP 215 (2014). Opinion 04/2014 on surveillance of electronic communications for intelligence and national security purposes (No. 819/14/EN WP 215). Brussels, Belgium: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, European Commission, Directorate General Justice.
Art. 29 WP 216 (2014). Opinion 05/2014 on anonymization techniques (No. 0829/14/EN). Brussels, Belgium: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, European Commission, Directorate General Justice.
Art. 29 WP 221 (2014). Statement on Statement of the WP29 on the impact of the development of big data on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data in the EU (No. 14/EN WP 221). Brussels, Belgium: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, European Commission, Directorate General Justice.
Art. 29 WP 228 (2014). Working document on surveillance of electronic communications for intelligence and national security purposes (No. 14/EN WP 228). Brussels, Belgium: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, European Commission, Directorate General Justice.
Art. 29 WP 237 (2016). Working document 01/2016 on the justification of interferences with the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection through surveillance measures when transferring personal data (European Essential Guarantees) (No. 16/EN WP 237). Brussels, Belgium: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, European Commission, Directorate General Justice.
Art. 29 WP 251 (2017). Guidelines on automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679 (No. 17/EN WP 251). Brussels, Belgium: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, European Commission, Directorate General Justice.
Andrejevic, M. (2014). Big data, big questions: The big data divide. International Journal of Communication, 8, 17.
Andrejevic, M., & Gates, K. (2014). Big data surveillance: Introduction. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 185.
Barocas, S., & Nissenbaum, H. (2014). Big data’s end run around anonymity and consent. Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good: Frameworks for Engagement, 1, 44–75.
Baruh, L., & Popescu, M. (2017). Big data analytics and the limits of privacy self-management. New Media & Society, 19(4), 579–596.
Berk, R. (2012). Criminal justice forecasts of risk: A machine learning approach. New York: Springer.
Blumenstock, J., Cadamuro, G., & On, R. (2015). Predicting poverty and wealth from mobile phone metadata. Science, 350(6264), 1073–1076.
Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.
Calmon, F. P., Makhdoumi, A., & Médard, M. (2015). Fundamental limits of perfect privacy. In June 2015 IEEE international symposium on information theory (ISIT) (pp. 1796-1800). IEEE.
Carr, M. (2015). Power plays in global internet governance. Millennium, 43(2), 640–659.
Chaudhuri, A. (2016). Internet of things data protection and privacy in the era of the General Data Protection Regulation. Journal of Data Protection & Privacy, 1(1), 64–75.
Cooley, T. M. (Ed.). (1888). A treatise on the law of torts, or the wrongs which arise independent of contract. 2nd edn. Chicago: Callaghan & Co.
Englehardt, S., & Narayanan, A. (2016). Online tracking: A 1-million-site measurement and analysis. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security (pp. 1388–1401). ACM.
Etzioni, A. (2018). Apple: Good business, poor citizen? Journal of Business Ethics, 151(1), 1–11.
Federal Trade Commission. (2016). In the matter of genesis toys and nuance communications—Complaint and request for investigation. Submitted by The Electronic Privacy Information Center, The Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood and The Center for Digital Democracy Consumers Union, 6 December, 2016.
Floridi, L. (2014). Open data, data protection, and group privacy. Philosophy & Technology, 27(1), 1–3.
Gandy, O. H., Jr. (2012). Statistical surveillance: Remote sensing in the digital age. In K. Ball, K. Haggerty, & D. Lyon (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of surveillance studies (pp. 125–132). London: Routledge.
Geng, H. (2017). Internet of things and data analytics handbook. Chichester: Wiley.
Glaeser, E. L., Hillis, A., Kominers, S. D., & Luca, M. (2016). Crowdsourcing city government: Using tournaments to improve inspection accuracy. American Economic Review, 106(5), 114–118.
Glaeser, E. L., Kominers, S. D., Luca, M., & Naik, N. (2018). Big data and big cities: The promises and limitations of improved measures of urban life. Economic Inquiry, 56(1), 114–137.
Gritzalis, S. (2004). Enhancing web privacy and anonymity in the digital era. Information Management & Computer Security, 12(3), 255–287.
Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605–622.
Hintze, M. (2016). In defense of the long privacy statement. Md. L. Rev., 76, 1044.
Hintze, M. (2017). Viewing the GDPR through a de-identification lens: A tool for compliance, clarification, and consistency. International Data Privacy Law, 8(1), 86–101.
Hintze, M., & El Emam, K. (2018). Comparing the benefits of pseudonymisation and anonymisation under the GDPR. Journal of Data Protection & Privacy, 2(2), 145–158.
Hull, G. (2015). Successful failure: What Foucault can teach us about privacy self-management in a world of Facebook and big data. Ethics and Information Technology, 17(2), 89–101.
Kitchin, R. (2014). The data revolution: Big data, open data, data infrastructures and their consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behavior: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64, 122–134.
Koops, B.-J., & Leenes, R. (2014). Privacy regulation cannot be hardcoded. A critical comment on the ‘privacy by design’provision in data-protection law. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 28(2), 159–171.
Kramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8788–8790.
Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. London: Psychology Press.
Lyon, D. (2014). Surveillance, snowden, and big data: Capacities, consequences, critique. Big Data & Society, 1(2), 2053951714541861.
Lyon, D. (2015). Surveillance after snowden. New York: Wiley.
Lyon, D., Haggerty, K. D., & Ball, K. (Eds.). (2012). Routledge handbook of surveillance studies. New York: Routledge.
Madden, M., Gilman, M., Levy, K., & Marwick, A. (2017). Privacy, poverty, and big data: A matrix of vulnerabilities for poor Americans. Washington University Law Review, 95, 53–125.
Martin, K. (2015a). Ethical issues in the big data industry. MIS Quarterly Executive, 14(2), 67–85.
Martin, K. (2015b). Privacy notices as tabula rasa: An empirical investigation into how complying with a privacy notice is related to meeting privacy expectations online. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34(2), 210–227.
Martin, K. (2016a). Data aggregators, consumer data, and responsibility online: Who is tracking consumers online and should they stop? The Information Society, 32(1), 51–63.
Martin, K. (2016b). Do privacy notices matter? Comparing the impact of violating formal privacy notices and informal privacy norms on consumer trust online. The Journal of Legal Studies, 45(S2), S191–S215.
Martin, K. (2016c). Understanding privacy online: Development of a social contract approach to privacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(3), 551–569.
Martin, K. (2019). Trust and the online market maker: A comment on Etzioni’s Cyber Trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(1), 21–24.
Martin, K., & Nissenbaum, H. (2016). Measuring privacy: An empirical test using context to expose confounding variables. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 18, 176–218.
Martin, K., & Shilton, K. (2016). Putting mobile application privacy in context: An empirical study of user privacy expectations for mobile devices. The Information Society, 32(3), 200–216.
Marwick, A. E. (2012). The public domain: Social surveillance in everyday life. Surveillance & Society, 9(4), 378–393.
Miller, K. (2014). Total surveillance, big data, and predictive crime technology: Privacy’s perfect storm. Journal of Technology Law & Policy, 19, 105–146.
Miraz, M. H., Ali, M., Excell, P. S., & Picking, R. (2015). A review on Internet of Things (IoT), Internet of everything (IoE) and Internet of nano things (IoNT). In Internet technologies and applications (ITA), 2015 (pp. 219–224). IEEE.
Mourby, M., Mackey, E., Elliot, M., Gowans, H., Wallace, S. E., Bell, J., et al. (2018). Are ‘pseudonymised’data always personal data? Implications of the GDPR for administrative data research in the UK. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), 222–233.
Newkirk, D. (2018). “Apple: good business, poor citizen”: A practitioner’s response. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(1), 13–16.
Newman, N. (2013). The costs of lost privacy: Consumer harm and rising economic inequality in the age of Google. William Mitchell Law Review, 40, 849–889.
Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Obermeyer, Z., & Emanuel, E. J. (2016). Predicting the future—Big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 375(13), 1216–1219.
Pagallo, U. (2017). The legal challenges of big data: Putting secondary rules first in the field of EU data protection. European Data Protection Law Review, 3, 36–46.
Panackal, J. J., & Pillai, A. S. (2015). Adaptive utility-based anonymization model: Performance evaluation on big data sets. Procedia Computer Science, 50, 347–352.
Qualman, E. (2010). Socialnomics: How social media transforms the way we live and do business. New York: Wiley.
Richardson, J. (2016). Law and the philosophy of privacy. Oxford: Routledge.
Rosenblatt, A. (2017). How drivers shame Uber Lyft passengers. Medium, May 29, 2017.
Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2015). Uber’s drivers: Information asymmetries and control in dynamic work. Data & Society Research Institute, 17.
Rotenberg, M., & Jacobs, D. (2013). Updating the law of information privacy: The new Framework of the European union. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 36, 605–652.
Rouvroy, A. (2016). “Of Data and Men”. Fundamental rights and freedoms in a world of big data. Council of Europe, Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law, T-PD-BUR (2015) 09REV, Strasbourg.
Safari, B. A. (2016). Intangible privacy rights: How Europe’s GDPR will set a new global standard for personal data protection. Seton Hall Law Review, 47, 809–848.
Solove, D. J. (2007). Nothing to hide. San Diego Law Review, 44(4), 745–772.
Solove, D. J. (2011). Nothing to hide: The false tradeoff between privacy and security. London: Yale University Press.
Soria-Comas, J., & Domingo-Ferrer, J. (2016). Big data privacy: Challenges to privacy principles and models. Data Science and Engineering, 1(1), 21–28.
Taddicken, M. (2014). The ‘privacy paradox’in the social web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of self-disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 248–273.
Taylor, L., Floridi, L., & Van der Sloot, B. (2016). Group privacy: New challenges of data technologies (Vol. 126)., Philosophical Study Series New York: Springer.
Torra, V. (2017). Data privacy: Foundations, new developments and the big data challenge. Cham: Springer.
Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.
Victor, J. (2013). The EU General Data Protection Regulation: Toward a property regime for protecting data privacy. The Yale Law Journal, 123(2), 513–528.
Voigt, P., & Von dem Bussche, A. (2017). The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Vol. 18). Cham: Springer.
Wachter, S. (2018). Normative challenges of identification in the Internet of Things: Privacy, profiling, discrimination, and the GDPR. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(3), 436–449.
Warner, R., & Sloan, R. H. (2014). Self, privacy, and power: Is it all over. Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 17, 61–108.
West, S. M. (2017). Data capitalism: Redefining the logics of surveillance and privacy. Business & Society, 58, 1–22.
Whelan, G. (2019). Trust in surveillance: A reply to Etzioni. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(1), 15–19.
Xiaying, M. (2019). The legal attributes of electronic data and the positioning of data in civil law. Social Sciences in China, 40(1), 82–99.
Xu, L., Jiang, C., Chen, Y., Wang, J., & Ren, Y. (2016). A framework for categorizing and applying privacy-preservation techniques in big data mining. Computer, 49(2), 54–62.
Young, A. L., & Quan-Haase, A. (2013). Privacy protection strategies on Facebook: The Internet privacy paradox revisited. Information, Communication & Society, 16(4), 479–500.
Zarsky, T. Z. (2013). Transparent predictions. University of Illinois Law Review, 2013, 1503–1569.
Zarsky, T. Z. (2016). Incompatible: The GDPR in the age of big data. Seton Hall Law Review, 47, 995–1020.
Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for the future at the new frontier of power. New York: Profile Books.
Metadaten
Titel
The General Data Protection Regulation in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism
verfasst von
Jane Andrew
Max Baker
Publikationsdatum
18.06.2019
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04239-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2021

Journal of Business Ethics 3/2021 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Strategies for Social and Environmental Disclosure: The Case of Multinational Gambling Companies

Original Paper

Hybrid Harvesting Strategies to Overcome Resource Constraints: Evidence from Social Enterprises in Kenya

Book Review

Review of Business, Power and Sustainability in a World of Global Value Chains by Stefano Ponte

Original Paper

Social Capital and Managers’ Use of Corporate Resources

Review Paper

A Dynamic Review of the Emergence of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication

Original Paper

Inching to Impact: The Demand Side of Social Impact Investing

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise