Rear view mirror, crystal ball: Predictions for the future of data protection law based on the history of environmental protection law

Making the future by using the future: A study on influencing privacy protection rules through anticipatory storylines

“…In this view, personal data are seen as a common pool resource subject to the tragedy of the commons (Regan, 2002). From this perspective, the GDPR may be criticised because its risk-related provisions are aimed at rights of individuals, implying that societal risks of datafication, such as chilling effects on intellectual exploration and behaviour, have been politically accepted (Rhoen, 2017; Van Dijk et al, 2016). The individual right to framing of privacy may thus distract attention from societal risks as well as the broader societal changes and precautionary future orientation necessary to ensure the survival of privacy in the digital age.…”

“…Her account of privacy as contextual integrity is useful because it focuses attention on ethical and political values in social domains to counterbalance both ubiquitous data collection and the notion of privacy as an individual interest (Nissenbaum, 2017). However, if contexts are conceptualised narrowly, it may be too restrictive because big data analytics, for instance, may lead to emergent effects such as ‘system accidents’ that range across contexts (Rhoen, 2017). The functions of privacy for individuals and society have been debated for decades, leading Solove to argue that privacy is an umbrella term for the protection of different kinds of valuable activities from disruption (Pedersen, 1997; Regan, 2002; Solove, 2008).…”