Big tech surveillance could damage democracy

Big tech surveillance could damage democracy
Companies use data to make a portrait of their users. Credit: ImageFlow/shutterstock.com

Data is often called the oil of the 21st century.

The more know about their users, the more effectively they can direct them to goods and services that they are likely to buy. The more companies know about their users, the more competitive they are in the market.

Custom-tailored capitalism is what has made Google, Facebook, Amazon and others the richest companies in the world. This profit incentive has turned big tech into a competitive field of mass intelligence gathering. The better and more comprehensive the , the higher profits will be.

But this business model—what I consider spying machines—has to violate civil liberties. Big tech is already being used abroad to enhance the power of repressive regimes, as my work and others' has shown.

While it is not presently a direct threat to U.S. democracy, I worry that the potential for future abuses exists so long as big tech remains largely unregulated.

Big tech's spy machines

Current news is rife with examples of data abuses. In April, NBC News broke a story detailing how Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had used data gathered by the platform to support his friends and defeat his rivals.

This is not Facebook's first privacy PR nightmare. In 2018, data firm Cambridge Analytica used a Facebook app to collect data profiles of over 87 million people, which was later used to distribute targeted political advertising during elections.

Facebook is not alone in the data collection boom. This May, it was revealed that Snapchat employees were using the app's data to obtain location data, pictures and email addresses without users' consent. A new book by former Harvard business professor Shoshana Zuboff goes into great detail of the practices of what she calls "surveillance capitalism." Zuboff writes, "Once we searched Google. Now, Google searches us."

The practice goes beyond someone's taste in music or what they purchase on Amazon. Apps created to help people through mental illness or quit smoking sell data to big tech companies. These users could be potential targets for social stigmatization or targeted advertising that exacerbates heath problems rather than solving them.

In December, the New York Times published an exposé on what one can learn about someone using their collated data from apps and smartphones. By blending location tracking with other online behavior, researchers were able to put together a detailed portrait of the most intimate details of users' lives, such as where their children go to school or who was cheating on their diet. They could even tell which area of a nuclear power plant an individual worked in—information that is typically classified.

Because of these revelations, data that big tech collects poses a national security problem. One open source researcher used data from Strava, a fitness app, to map U.S. military bases around the world as soldiers tracked their runs. Our devices are constantly telling companies where we are and what we are doing. That is not always a good thing.

For the worst-case scenarios, look abroad

Big tech is a highly unregulated sector of the economy. Existing regulations have struggled to keep up with a rapidly innovating tech sector. In some scenarios, big tech's capabilities are being used by dictators to craft a dystopian digital reality.

Autocratic governments around the world have already begun to use emerging technology to violate human rights. China is a prime example. China integrates AI, biometric data and online activity to track and monitor dissidents and members of ethnic minority communities, who are then sent to reeducation camps.

From my time researching the ways Russia uses these platforms to threaten democracy, I am familiar with the worst-case scenarios of big tech's capabilities. Because platforms' success is predicated on making information go viral, the most successful content can also be some of the most divisive. Russia believes that by disseminating enough false information about the most inflammatory areas of American politics, it can sow chaos in the system. Big tech is the perfect port of entry for such campaigns.

If Russian attacks on social media are combined with AI technology, information attacks could become precision-guided. Nefarious actors could gather the comprehensive profiles that surveillance capitalism has compiled over the years. Fake news would then no longer speak to issues but to individuals, appealing to what makes the user change their mind.

If a monopolistic tech company decided to fully embrace its capacity to spy on its users and leverage that data to a personal or political end, the consequences for democracy could be catastrophic. Americans got a taste of what an influence attack looks like during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. So long as big tech remains largely unregulated, future influence attacks on American elections will become only more potent.

Big tech isn't going anywhere

A surface-level solution to this privacy dilemma would be for people to decouple their online lives from these companies.

For example, DuckDuckGo is an alternative search engine that does not compile user data and promises total privacy. A new browser, Brave, has promised to pay users back for selling data to advertisers.

However, these products are nowhere near as useful for a casual internet user than Google. Simply choosing not to use Google is not that simple.

While there are many different companies in question, they all hold near-monopolistic control over their corner of the market. Amazon dominates online shopping. Facebook dominates interacting with friends and causes. Google dominates web browsing.

Individuals are thus faced with a choice: Radically change their lifestyle and how they interact with the world, or continue to be the target of big 's spy machines.

Oversight and regulation may seem dramatic and anti-growth at the moment, but I believe that it is a necessary check on —before the worst of its potentials come true.


Explore further

EU: Facebook changes terms to show it makes money from data

Provided by The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.The Conversation

Citation: Big tech surveillance could damage democracy (2019, June 4) retrieved 24 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-06-big-tech-surveillance-democracy.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
6 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 04, 2019
Quote article "I worry that the potential for future abuses exists."
Nowhere in this article does it say where privacy is needed for democracy. That is why privacy is not mentioned in the constitution or the of the bill rights.
We are gradually losing are privacy as technology advances. Nothing will stop that for long, get used to it. But there are pros to losing our privacy, for example criminals can't hide behind anonymity, especially on the internet. Even past criminals will be found and punished the same way criminals are now being found and punished based on DNA left at the scene of a crime decades ago.

It seems that the author's work for the department of defense on NATO matters has made him blind on one eye. There is already a dark reality of US citizen and global citizen data being abused by US authorities for hardly justified because disproportional purposes. And isn't it pretty cheap to just claim "Russia believes that by disseminating enough false information about the most inflammatory areas of American politics, it can sow chaos in the system" without providing a shred of evidence for a claim that Russia's administration would have a foreign policy of uninvited interference by spreading chaos in other countries? Someone else is more famous for that. Further on, I always thought that it is a duty of any journalism to surface problematic trends and scandals for making politicians and the public at large aware of them and motivated to improve things. Should our societies rather opt for coverup and thus withhold the benefit of learning from mistakes from us?

Jun 08, 2019
I just got an amazon prime credit card. $70 off the first purchase - who could resist that? But to use their app they want access to your location and files. For what? If you change permissions after you join it wont let you back in until you comply.

Again - why does a cc need my files and location?? My other card doesnt. My bank doesnt.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more