Biden’s Summit for Democracy Won’t Address Big Tech’s Threat to Personal Freedom – Barron’s

Text size

About the author: Susan Ariel Aaronson is research professor of international affairs at George Washington University, where she directs the Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub.

At the behest of the U.S., representatives of 100 nations will gather online on Thursday and Friday to examine how they can sustain democracy. The Summit for Democracy has a packed agenda but ignores a major threat: Firms in the U.S. and elsewhere use large troves of personal data to manipulate our behavior, which is directly and indirectly endangering our autonomy, human rights, and democracy. This threat to democracy was and continues to be made in America, and Americas allies know it.

Americans developed, funded, and are perpetuating a new economic sector built on personal-data analysis. In return for free services, users grant firms such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook control of their shared personal data for use and reuse. These firms collect and monetize this data to create new products and services. They also sell their analyses and at times data sets to a wide range of governmental and corporate customers. Harvard scholar Shoshana Zuboff calls these practices surveillance capitalism, because these firms repackage personal data as prediction products for customers who want to learn how we think, what we will do in the future, and even how we vote. These practices undermine political and social stability. If individuals can be easily manipulated, whether through ads or with divisive content, they are less able to effectively participate in democracy and trust their fellow citizens.

The business model also poses an indirect threat to democracy. Firms and individuals can mix troves of personal data with other data sets to reveal information about a polity or society, from the level of trust to troop movements. This dependence on personal data poses a multilayered threat to democracies worldwide.

The public is concerned about these practices. In 2019, the Pew Research Center found that many people feared that their data is being used without their consent and are concerned that firms might use their clients personal data to discriminate against and manipulate them. But at the same time, users are unwilling to quit these firms, because they (and their networks of friends, relatives, and colleagues) depend on them.

Some firms appear to be reducing their dependence on these business practices. Apple, for instance, is using transparency to empower consumers to avoid apps that misuse their personal data. In November, Facebook said it will shut down its Face Recognition system. Users who opted in (accepted) facial recognition in will no longer be automatically recognized in photos and videos. The company, which now goes by Meta, will delete more than a billion peoples individual facial recognition templates until regulatory policies clarify how the company can use such data. Thats a start, but it doesnt change the bigger picture: Firms like this continue to undermine democracy through their exploitation of personal data. The U.S. government recognizes the threat. In its 2021 report, the U.S. National Intelligence Council warned that in the future, privacy and anonymity may effectively disappear by choice or government mandate Real-time, manufactured or synthetic media could further distort truth and reality, destabilizing societies at a scale and speed that dwarfs current disinformation challenges.

U.S. policymakers are divided as to how to address this problem and have focused their efforts on a personal data protection law and on reducing these firms monopoly power. But they have not tackled the business model head on for several reasons. First, the pandemic underscored global dependence on the biggest tech firms. Second, the U.S. government relies on these same firms for expertise, research, products, and services in areas from nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, extended reality, the internet of things, to quantum technologies, autonomous vehicles, and beyond. Not surprisingly, some officials are concerned that further regulation could weaken these firms ability to innovate, in turn reducing U.S. competitiveness and defensive readiness. (European officials have similar concerns.) Nonetheless, in October 2021, the Department of Justice, joined by 11 states, initiated a federal antitrust suit against Google alleging abuse of its online search monopoly. The Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against Facebook for what its allegedly anticompetitive actions, joined by a suit from 48 attorneys general.

Given these different perspectives, the U.S. is sending mixed signals to its allies, including those it is gathering online this week. On one hand, the U.S. is trying to foster international cooperation to rein in these companies. It is working with the European Union on a Trade and Technology Council, and a broader coalition of allies on a shared approach to competition policies and data governance through entities such as the OECD and the G7. And Congress is trying to pass a national personal data protection law.

But the U.S. government is also actively trying to weaken regulation of these firms and their practices in other countries. For example, Reuters reported in November that U.S. government officials have argued against the EUs draft rules, which are designed to create more competition and facilitate data portability. The U.S. allegedly argued that requiring U.S. tech giants to share information with rivals could risk companies intellectual property and trade secrets. The U.S. also tried to water down the U.K.s approach to personal data protection. Finally, while Congress holds hearings on these firms monopoly power, on data brokers and anticompetitive practices, it has done little to incentivize these firms to rethink their use of personal data or to examine how these practices may indirectly or directly affect human agency and democracy as a whole.

There seems to be little chance that this weeks summit will resolve any of these concerns. The White House had planned to roll out a new coalition in support of a free and open internet on the sidelines of the summit. But that plan was apparently pulled at the last moment, following substantialpushback from leading digital rights groups, Protocol reported.

Americas muddied approach should end now if we want these firmsand democracyto flourish. Congress must pass laws that require personal data to be protected from misuse and hold firms to account for inadequate cybersecurity. We must incentivize the data giants to find new ways to fund their services. Finally, we need to build on the long history of global cooperation to solve cross-border threats. The Biden administration should begin that brainstorming this week with its allies.

Guest commentaries like this one are written by authors outside the Barrons and MarketWatch newsroom. They reflect the perspective and opinions of the authors. Submit commentary proposals and other feedback toideas@barrons.com.

Link:

Biden's Summit for Democracy Won't Address Big Tech's Threat to Personal Freedom - Barron's