With change comes cost. And with transformation, comes a new era of information. A much anticipated shift from the traditional to the modern world of technology and development, that world powers have bene participating in an indirect digital competency to reach the end line of success and power. But with all the technological advances, there’s a small fee to be paid, a fee that concerns one’s own personal data and digital footprint, rather than the full budget of debt and expenses.
At times when physical borderlines were protected by and through legal assortments of law enforcement and civil rights, cyber spaces have been and continue to be an open-ended battle field that is increasingly becoming more difficult to control and operate within the context of legalization and regulation.
Everyone enjoyed and continues to embrace the freedom that the interment provides users with, where one can express themselves freely on different platforms and creat content that would attract audience members. However, once the record has been set in motion to play, hitting the pause button is not an option to be considered on that particular space. It’s a world on its own, a universe where users can escape to and have a better experience and understanding of the outside world.
But with more dependency on the digital world and spaces, users sensed a new phase of change. A change that introduced fear and uncertainty through the pages and gadgets that everyone uses and depends on. It’s the fear of exploitation and miscommunication that can drag one into a dark rabbit hole of a whole new world that has become a common theme for many people, and especially young users, to be taken advantage of by the internet and the predators who reside behind the scenes.
Domestic digital crimes are turning into a more sincere threat to the global community and world powers.
As time goes by and technology is setting new foot in advancement on daily bases, one can sense a growing trend of digital war that world powers are participating in, with or without their consent. It’s not about the army and physical attacks. Now is the time of cyber attacks that threat’s one privacy and security. Regardless of who that person is, a president, civilian or anyone with power and authority, the attacks have been targeted and continue to target major states in exchange of information, power and even shift of authority.
That led states to take particular actions to prevent such incidents from happening and escalating into a new era of violence and cyber wars, that would be more complex to put an end to, especially when the start and the beginning of the attack has been erased from the digital universe, and that causes more damage because legal laws and regulations holds the state with the first attack, full responsibility and accountability. But the cyber universe is a much larger threat on the scale of attacks, due to anonymity and the upper scale of skilled hacking operations that are often associated with the use of malicious programs and codings.
States such as the U.S., UK, Russia, China and others, have proposed to Apple and other tech giants, to have full access on users’ data to prevent such threats on civilian’s, people in power and most importantly, the state’s security apparatus and governmental agencies who have large megabits in store of secretive and sensitive data. The aforesaid led to a considerable number of supporters and adversaries who were divided by the application of it, but united by the thought of security and long-term protection.
From a legal perspective, Article 12 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes on the importance of privacy of individuals as it always has to be considered and protected against any external threats and interference in their personal information, as stated, Human Rights Declaration “protects individuals from arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence, and also protects them from attacks on their honor and reputation”.
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) also provides the legal epidemiological framework for protecting privacy and personal data against any kind of external threats. The EU’s GDPR also stated that breach of the law and the privacy of users is mostly commuted by the governments as a way to protect and safeguard their personal data from external third parties. Now that has been proven right for sometime, but users have become more sophisticated and aware of their own rights and the actions to secure their data by having a third party access to their personal contexts. Wanted criminals and people of interest are already on the Interpol’s list, and are being tracked both physically and digitally, and that’s not an issue people have, its the basic foundation that solidifies the meaning of protection and security.
However, what about the 9-5 civilians who have nothing to hide?, how and why would their information and digital footprint would be an accessible source for everyone to track down and report to?, even if they are nothing near people of interest and suspects. What kind of protection does a state’s full access on data would do and provide to the public?. And most importantly, how can this be done without the consent of the people?. It’s similar to the scenario of intruding into one’s private home with an illegal copied key, without their consent and knowledge, but here, it’s through digital surveillance.
According to the European Union’s GDPR, Article(6) pinpoints the right of protection and the lawful use of personal digital data and encryption without permission and consent. And that leaves the question of whether the law should be enforced by the courts immediately or redesign the regulation as to how cyber changes are being formed and shaping into what one could never understand and expect.
It’s a hard decision for all, the citizens who will always be the number one priority and target, as well the world leaders who are seeking protection from the cyber threats that have the capability to start an endless war. If by any means regulations were constructed to fit the agenda of protection and consent of the people to have their data and digital footprints accessible to all, then there shall be transparency on who that information would go to, what will it lead to?, and what will happen to the information once it has been dissected and seen as a “none threatening” context of interest.
Comments