作为新自由主义政府性实例的 gdpr:对当前数据保护 "黄金标准 "的批判性分析

Ivan Manokha
{"title":"作为新自由主义政府性实例的 gdpr:对当前数据保护 \"黄金标准 \"的批判性分析","authors":"Ivan Manokha","doi":"10.1163/25903276-bja10045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The gdpr today is commonly seen as a ‘gold standard’ of personal data regulation. While recognizing the importance of the gdpr, especially in affirming that personal data belongs to the individuals rather than commercial or public entities, this paper seeks to demonstrate that such a view is, nevertheless, problematic: first, what the gdpr, along with similar regulations inspired by it elsewhere, effectively does is help organise the functioning of the personal data market in which private user data continues to be commodified and used to generate massive profits by various firms and platforms; second, the gdpr does it in a paradigmatically neoliberal manner – public authorities create a legal framework for a market, and devolve the responsibility for managing negative consequences to the affected populations themselves, presenting it as their ‘empowerment’; third, just as it is often the case with neoliberal governmentality in other sectors, the tool provided by the gdpr to individuals to protect themselves – here the right to reject the terms of service (tos) of different providers – embodies and reproduces an asymmetric power relation between capital and society – here between service providers and users – and effectively ensures that individuals continue to acquiesce to the collection and commodification of their private data: on the one hand, the complexity of different tos, their ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ nature, length, etc., render the evaluation of privacy implications very difficult for individual users; second, in some cases, the rejection of tos is impossible because access to the service in question is indispensable, as in the case of platform workers. Users mechanically click ‘Accept’ which is seen as an instance of ‘informed consent,’ and which in turn makes the collection and monetization of personal data legal.","PeriodicalId":143591,"journal":{"name":"Political Anthropological Research on International Social Sciences","volume":"11 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"gdpr as an Instance of Neoliberal Governmentality: a Critical Analysis of the Current ‘Gold Standard’ of Data Protection\",\"authors\":\"Ivan Manokha\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/25903276-bja10045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The gdpr today is commonly seen as a ‘gold standard’ of personal data regulation. While recognizing the importance of the gdpr, especially in affirming that personal data belongs to the individuals rather than commercial or public entities, this paper seeks to demonstrate that such a view is, nevertheless, problematic: first, what the gdpr, along with similar regulations inspired by it elsewhere, effectively does is help organise the functioning of the personal data market in which private user data continues to be commodified and used to generate massive profits by various firms and platforms; second, the gdpr does it in a paradigmatically neoliberal manner – public authorities create a legal framework for a market, and devolve the responsibility for managing negative consequences to the affected populations themselves, presenting it as their ‘empowerment’; third, just as it is often the case with neoliberal governmentality in other sectors, the tool provided by the gdpr to individuals to protect themselves – here the right to reject the terms of service (tos) of different providers – embodies and reproduces an asymmetric power relation between capital and society – here between service providers and users – and effectively ensures that individuals continue to acquiesce to the collection and commodification of their private data: on the one hand, the complexity of different tos, their ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ nature, length, etc., render the evaluation of privacy implications very difficult for individual users; second, in some cases, the rejection of tos is impossible because access to the service in question is indispensable, as in the case of platform workers. Users mechanically click ‘Accept’ which is seen as an instance of ‘informed consent,’ and which in turn makes the collection and monetization of personal data legal.\",\"PeriodicalId\":143591,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Anthropological Research on International Social Sciences\",\"volume\":\"11 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Anthropological Research on International Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/25903276-bja10045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Anthropological Research on International Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/25903276-bja10045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如今,gdpr 通常被视为个人数据法规的 "黄金标准"。本文承认 gdpr 的重要性,特别是在确认个人数据属于个人而非商业或公共实体方面,但试图证明这种观点是有问题的:首先,gdpr 以及其他地方受其启发而制定的类似法规的实际作用是帮助组织个人数据市场的运作,在这个市场中,用户的私人数据继续被商品化,并被各种公司和平台用来创造巨额利润;其次,gdpr 是以一种典型的新自由主义方式来实现这一点的--公共当局为市场建立了一个法律框架,并将管理负面影响的责任下放给受影响人群自己,将此作为对他们的 "赋权";第三,正如其他领域的新自由主义政府行为一样,GDPR 为个人提供的自我保护工具--这里是拒绝不同提供商服务条款(tos)的权利--体现并复制了资本与社会--这里是服务提供商与用户--之间的不对称权力关系,并有效确保个人继续默许其私人数据的收集和商品化:一方面,不同服务条款的复杂性、其 "要么接受要么放弃 "的性质、长度等,都会导致个人数据的收集和商品化。,一方面,不同服务条款的复杂性、"要么接受,要么放弃 "的性质、长度等,使得个人用户很难评估隐私的影响;其次,在某些情况下,拒绝服务条款是不可能的,因为使用相关服务是不可或缺的,例如平台工作者。用户会机械地点击 "接受",这被视为 "知情同意",反过来又使个人数据的收集和货币化合法化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
gdpr as an Instance of Neoliberal Governmentality: a Critical Analysis of the Current ‘Gold Standard’ of Data Protection
The gdpr today is commonly seen as a ‘gold standard’ of personal data regulation. While recognizing the importance of the gdpr, especially in affirming that personal data belongs to the individuals rather than commercial or public entities, this paper seeks to demonstrate that such a view is, nevertheless, problematic: first, what the gdpr, along with similar regulations inspired by it elsewhere, effectively does is help organise the functioning of the personal data market in which private user data continues to be commodified and used to generate massive profits by various firms and platforms; second, the gdpr does it in a paradigmatically neoliberal manner – public authorities create a legal framework for a market, and devolve the responsibility for managing negative consequences to the affected populations themselves, presenting it as their ‘empowerment’; third, just as it is often the case with neoliberal governmentality in other sectors, the tool provided by the gdpr to individuals to protect themselves – here the right to reject the terms of service (tos) of different providers – embodies and reproduces an asymmetric power relation between capital and society – here between service providers and users – and effectively ensures that individuals continue to acquiesce to the collection and commodification of their private data: on the one hand, the complexity of different tos, their ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ nature, length, etc., render the evaluation of privacy implications very difficult for individual users; second, in some cases, the rejection of tos is impossible because access to the service in question is indispensable, as in the case of platform workers. Users mechanically click ‘Accept’ which is seen as an instance of ‘informed consent,’ and which in turn makes the collection and monetization of personal data legal.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信