Well, let’s put it this way – if this article was written at the onset of the 2000s where the openness in which private individuals started to share their most intimate whereabouts, thoughts, actions and photographs, you may have been forgiven for answering yes to my opening question.
With technological advances at that time, sharing of personal information in public online spaces often seemed to take place without hesitation and much thought for the consequences that could follow this invasion of privacy.
Some of the first social networks, MySpace and Facebook, seemed borderless and impersonal in their infancy stage. The (perceived) faceless interface gave individuals a voice. While individuals were encouraged to share their voice, communities of likeminded individuals were constructed over time. And individuals’ personal details along with their personalities were profiled. This practice circled out worldwide in a short two decades.
Today, it has become acceptable for a new job candidate’s digital footprint to be considered as part of the hiring process. How they live their lives in the digital dimension and the profile they (choose to) share carries greater weight than a remarkable resume, at first glance. Also, digital data obtained can inform marketing strategies and alter business directions.
This has made me question whether the evolution of social media and the Internet killed the concept of privacy? Or has privacy never truly existed until now, and the choice to give up privacy or not is up to individuals? Or is privacy perhaps a concept that has always been there, and have and will continue to evolve slowly alongside new social norms and technological uses, enough to warrant changes in regulations worldwide?
So, I set out to investigate these three questions:The death of privacy
In 1984 George Orwell wrote the dystopian novel 1984
. Inhabitants of the book’s fictitious super-state have no privacy in this imagined society, and as a result endured great suffering and injustice.
Was it a warning at the time?
Well, the book gave vision to what might transpire if nationalism, futurology, censorship and surveillance legally governed society. Even thought is controlled by undercover agents of the ‘thought police.’
Is it probable for humankind to lose the right over their own personal information should the current state continue, just as it was possible to lose the right to one’s own bodies and thoughts in a fictitious book?The social construction of privacy
An article I recently came across on Medium
argues that privacy is the absence of public, and that it is up to individuals to carefully choose what they share with public entities. Given that the article appeared in 2017 at perhaps the height of social sharing on technology platforms, perhaps the author’s views may have been aligned to an earlier, and more elementary school of thought pertaining to how individuals are in charge of their sharing behaviour on digital platforms.
We could argue that just a couple of decades ago malicious grand scale data breaches, such as the recent Transnet breach, was unthinkable. The threat of what could go wrong when hackers are able to exploit our personal information was not part of our frame of reference.
As technology evolved, the potential for invasion became more revealing. Suddenly candidates had to be mindful that it was possible for potential employers to consider information about their private lives on social platforms. It became obvious that the data that you chose to share with the world on social media now have the potential to cost you that dream job later.
But breaches may also lead to much larger scale injustices, such as identity theft, human or child trafficking, extortion, incitement of violence or interruption of business
To answer the author mentioned before, we need to consider the individual’s right to choose freedom of expression (or sharing) but the time has come to also protect the privacy of individuals and society.
As technology evolve, our collective understanding of its usage and pitfalls must continually evolve.Privacy is lawfully recognised as an inherent right
In fact, it took over 130 years for the now buzz word, ‘privacy protection,’ to find a legal foothold in countries across the world. It all started with a scholarly article that appeared in the Harvard Law Review just before the turn of the century, which was written by Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren.
The article published in 1890, The Right to Privacy,
is recognised in Western cultures as one of the most influential essays to argue for an individual’s right to privacy. The authors argued that the common law had nurtured a new right, known simply as privacy, which demanded lawful acceptance.
Before, and after this publication, many commentators have stumbled over privacy and couldn’t agree upon a definition as they tended to focus on defining privacy as a philosophical or moral concept.
"Political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights. The common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the demands of society," wrote Warren and Brandeis. In other words, the meaning of privacy is driven by historical events. Legal advances in other areas of the law were listed such as the right to be protected from slander and libel, the right to protection of private property, and the right to protect the publication of one’s own labour, artistry and creativity. The law in these instances was designed to curtail suffering and anguish. Why should it not be the same outcome for the protection of privacy, or ‘the right to be left alone’?
In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declarations of Human Rights
, an international step to lawfully affording the private individual with “the right to not be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
In 1995, the European Union adopted the Data Protection Directive, which regulated the processing of personal data within the EU. The Directive was replaced by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
in 2018 – a breakthrough data protection regulation that has been hailed globally as a golden standard among data protection regulations.
South Africa’s Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA)
is no exception to the growing list of countries
committed to upholding the right to protect information relating to an identifiable, living natural person and, where applicable, an identifiable company or other similar legal entity.A continued journey
Yes, over the last few decades, technology platforms for social engagement and organisational productivity have been new and exciting. We have celebrated the rise of freedom of expression and the right to navigate better ways of working and doing business. The trade-off of such freedoms may lead to digital data exploitation.
On the road to safeguard privacy, the journey is far from over. Protection of privacy is experimental in nature due to the evolving advancements in technology and human interaction with said evolving technology.
I can’t help to think that Harvard Law Review authors Brandeis and Warren are proudly sitting back, looking down at humanity as we are now lawfully enforcing the right to privacy.
I am encouraged that we are choosing the storyline where legal protection for the privacy of individuals will make it harder and harder for suffering and harm to remain a threat to our society.About Kriel & Co: Kriel & Co is an IMCSA-accredited management consulting practice specialising in change management, digital transformation and mentorship. The practice actively serves clients in a variety of sectors with a proven track-record of delivering innovative, cost-effective and sustainable strategies for digital change. Consultants are primarily retained on a long-term project basis by clients to oversee holistic digital transformation projects and initiatives. Contact for more information.