The Normalization of Surveillance

We’ve become accustomed to blindly accepting terms of service, privacy policies, and cookie banners, often without reading a single word. Data breaches are no longer shocking headlines but routine occurrences, exposing everything from personal correspondence to sensitive government plans – as evidenced by incidents like the Ashley Madison hack and the accidental disclosure of military attack strategies. This constant barrage of privacy violations has fostered a sense of helplessness, leading many to believe that resistance is futile.

As scholars of data, technology, and culture have observed, when individuals perceive data collection and abuse as inevitable, they are more likely to accept it, even if it compromises their safety or fundamental rights. Research demonstrates this acceptance isn’t a sign of indifference, but a coping mechanism in the face of overwhelming systemic forces.

Where Current Regulations Fall Short

While policy reforms offer a potential path toward change, the United States lags behind many nations in comprehensive data protection. Unlike the growing number of countries with robust data privacy laws, the U.S. relies on a fragmented patchwork of regulations.

The most comprehensive federal laws, like the Privacy Act of 1974, enacted in response to post-Watergate surveillance concerns, are nearly four decades old. While it initially limited how federal agencies collected and shared data, it contained significant loopholes, particularly for law enforcement, and didn’t extend to private companies. This allows data collected by private entities to end up in government hands without adequate oversight, and there’s a critical regulatory gap protecting individuals from this practice.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 broadened protections to include electronic communications, but failed to anticipate the widespread use of cloud storage, leaving vast amounts of data vulnerable.

Since 2018, 19 states have enacted data privacy laws, but many still include exceptions for law enforcement access. These laws often rely on a consent-based approach – the ubiquitous “accept all cookies” banners – placing the burden of privacy protection on individuals rather than restricting data collection at the source.

The Privacy Paradox and Data Disaffection

The “privacy paradox” – the discrepancy between stated concerns and actual behavior – is well-documented. People often use invasive products and consent to data collection even when alternatives exist. This isn’t necessarily a lack of concern, but a reflection of the intentionally convoluted and inconvenient options for limiting data collection, as highlighted by researchers Nora Draper and Joseph Turow. Simply “nudging” people toward better choices isn’t enough; we must address the root cause of their helplessness.

This feeling of powerlessness is what we term “data disaffection” – not apathy, but an intentional emotional detachment as a survival mechanism against the constant onslaught of datafication. It’s a similar response to news avoidance, political disengagement, or climate change denial. People disengage because data collection feels overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, not because they don’t care.

Do you find yourself automatically clicking “accept” on privacy policies without reading them? What would it take for you to feel more in control of your personal data?

Reclaiming Agency: Beyond Individual Action

Addressing data disaffection requires recognizing that digital privacy is a cultural issue, not solely an individual responsibility. While comprehensive data privacy laws and behavioral changes are crucial, storytelling plays a vital role in shaping perceptions. The pervasive narrative of “the end of privacy” isn’t a prediction; it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Philosopher J.L. Austin termed such statements “performative utterances,” shaping reality through language.

Cultural institutions, including journalists, contribute to this narrative. The constant stream of stories about government data access, often devoid of solutions or accountability, reinforces the sense of helplessness. However, we can also tell stories that highlight the alarming growth of digital surveillance and frame data governance as a political issue, not a technical inevitability. The way we tell these stories shapes people’s expectations and demands.

The ICE-Medicaid data-sharing agreement is just one example of the ongoing threats to data privacy. But how we talk about it – and how we feel about it – will determine whether we continue to accept these abuses or demand meaningful change.

Frequently Asked Questions About Data Privacy