The final session of Where We’re Going: Privacy began with moderator Mark McKenna touching upon the increasingly global dimensions of privacy. Getting right into the discussion, he asked his two guests to describe how their different governments approach the idea of privacy and how it is implemented. Rob Corbet spoke first, offering Ireland’s perspective as a member of the European Union (EU). In reference to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Corbet mentioned how the Irish government may sometimes take a different perspective in enforcing the privacy regulations being applied in Europe. Although overarching rules such as the GDPR seem uniform, he admitted that they “can lead to a certain amount of politicization of privacy, even within the European Union.” Following this, Jing He introduced how China uses two distinct terms — privacy and personal information — in these discussions. According to him, there are “subtle distinctions reflecting some very different philosophies” that make these terms not interchangeable. Private sector firms interpret this distinction to be rooted in the government’s ample recognition of the need to regulate privacy combined with their interest in allowing technology firms to develop without much hindrance.
Observing that these distinctions seem to appear in assumptions about other privacy policies, McKenna mentioned the stereotype that “the United States focuses on privacy and Europeans focus on data protection.” When asked if that was a fair statement, Corbet acknowledged that it was, and that this contrast between policies contributes to a considerable amount of confusion. He went on to explain that in the EU “data protection is given this fundamental human rights status,” whereas the right to privacy is viewed much more subjectively. Confusion comes from an inability to distinguish what parts of data protection are most seriously threatened. In comparison, Jing noted that China’s growing awareness about data and privacy extended to safety, but not to the context of human rights.
McKenna commented on the dichotomy between “the global nature of … data flows and the regional nature of the regulations” before asking the guests about addressing this problem with clients. Corbet mentioned how regional rules about privacy prevent global companies from having consistent methods of data transfer. Jing added that GDPR seems to be the “gold standard” of privacy regulation, and that regional boundaries could be more compatible by using this framework. This brought up the debate of whether or not a default standard for regulation was possible. Corbet questioned if governments would actually give up control over their access to data, noting that the global inconsistency of standards was problematic in creating uniformity; a U.S. federal law aligning with GDPR would be pivotal. In contrast, Jing did see a possibility for uniformity due to the numerous areas in which he has seen GDPR being used as a framework for regulations.
Curious about COVID’s impact, McKenna wondered if the pandemic had nudged public opinion towards privacy in any direction. Jing responded that people seem to be more tolerant of their information being collected, especially for public health reasons. However, he recognized that this tolerance would reach a limit. Corbet added that the pandemic seemed to show the government’s reliance on data for problem solving. He highlighted that without a regulatory framework in Ireland, citizens would not have trusted the new contact-tracing program. Noting a difference in cultures, Jing highlighted that in China, trusting the government was generally a “default position.” Adding a third perspective, McKenna noted that no national method of contact tracing took off in the U.S., largely due to skepticism about corporate misuse of data rather than government collection.
To wrap up the discussion, McKenna asked both panelists to share their hopes and concerns for the future of privacy regulations. Corbet spoke first, admitting that he worried that the fragmentation of approaches to privacy “is coming at a time when younger generations particularly need the protection of the law” over data they are ready to give away. He was hopeful, however, that the appetite for data would become less gluttonous and data would become less commoditized. Jing introduced concerns from a cyber security perspective, nervous that it would take a major crisis to wake people up about how valuable the amassed data has become. Ending optimistically, he did address his hope for the growing digital economy to be beneficial for people worldwide, and he noted that business ethics could be a driving factor in such an initiative.
Visit the event page for more.
