|
Computers, Privacy & the Constitution
|
|
The Impact of Apathy on Data Privacy [Second Revision]-- By ShannonGeoghegan - 27 Mar 2025 Author's Note: I pivoted on this revision because I was unsatisfied with the support I provided in my last paper to connect apathy and knowledge. While revising, my focus shifted to the interplay between apathy, data privacy, and American culture. It has a very similar conclusion to the last version, but I hope that the logical reasoning is stronger in this one.IntroductionIn the United States, modern data privacy law derives from statutes.(1) The Constitution provides no comprehensive right to data privacy,(2) and the result is a “patchwork approach to privacy.”(3) According to recent studies, Americans care about these laws—or at least they claim to.(4) In truth, the divergence between how much Americans care about data privacy, how greatly the issue affects their voting habits, and how much privacy they are content to concede is enormous. To prevent the worst effects of weak data privacy laws—including cybercrime, data breaches, fraud, and misuse of information —privacy advocates must address the issue of apathy.(5)Apathy and Its Effects on Data PrivacyQuestions of apathy in the political context generally center around the behavior of nonvoters.(6) But this approach is inadequate, as apathy does not solely manifest in the act of non-voting. It manifests too in the disregard for the dignity of others, in the degradation of societal values and norms. When Americans prioritize certain policies—such as the economic promises made during the last general election —the outcome is a hierarchy of sorts.(7) The resulting strata endorses the advancement of high ranking concerns at the expense of lower ranking concerns, thus shaping the culture. Unsurprisingly, exit polls from the 2024 general election indicate that Americans were motivated principally by the economy.(8) Less intuitively, pre- and post-election polling reveals far less about whether Americans were motivated by data privacy concerns. In one poll, 96% “of likely voters sa[id] passing a comprehensive federal privacy law is either extremely, very, or somewhat important.”(9) But despite separate studies confirming that Americans generally distrust social media companies, fear for their digital footprints, and wish that the government would do more to protect their data, questions surround the extent to which Americans act on these concerns.(10) In theory, Americans across the political spectrum could band together to demand reform. Many voters are cognizant of the issues and aligned in preference, a rare feat in modern politics. If data privacy was a priority—one that superseded at least some issues Americans disagreed on—it could unite people in advocacy. Unfortunately, this has not happened yet and there is little indication it will. If Americans concerned about data privacy have done little to advance stronger protections, common sense suggests that lesser aware Americans are unlikely to do anything. By and large, constituent behavior has not reflected the magnitude of concern individuals purport to have. For example, while most Americans contend that they “won’t do business with a company if they have concerns about its security practices,”(11) a majority voted for Donald Trump, a man known to skirt security protocols(12) and whose data security practices have faced intense scrutiny.(13) Americans seem content to compromise on data privacy, even though polling and statistics reveal that many are concerned about the issue.(14) More people should ask themselves why they refuse to act; why they are willing to concede without contest. Perhaps the answer is one of priorities, and data privacy simply ranks low. To be generous, some voters last cycle maybe did not understand the full implications of their vote. But Americans who prioritize the economy over humanitarian causes—as technology and data are being used to target vulnerable populations—have informed the culture. A society’s actions reflect its values and priorities, as does its inaction. People should consider in earnest the impact of their actions and the motivations that inspired them. Often, apathy is a choice. It may not be the universal first choice—it may not even be an easy choice—but it is a choice. Americans disinterested in protecting themselves and others have made a choice. Doing nothing while possessing the knowledge of what is at stake and being concerned about what is at stake—particularly when simple solutions exist—requires some active rejection of one's own instincts.ConclusionLooking forward, attacks on data privacy appear imminent.(15) Current policies seek to attack the vulnerable, to expose and even punish those with whom the administration disagrees. The fear this can breed—demonstrated well on college campuses(16) and at the border(17)—jeopardizes how much and what exactly people are willing or able to share. This process and its result will alter the culture; it will cement what we value and how much. These effects may be short-lived, or they may extend well into the future. The apathy of American voters must be addressed—not just in the non-voting sense, but in how Americans classify their priorities. Much like apathy is a choice, so too is learning from past mistakes and rectifying the damage.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
|
|
