Il contesto di cui parla Daniel Solove nel suono editoriale per il Boston Globe sono gli USA, per cui vari suoi ragionamenti vanno adattati al contesto EU. jc *Privacy in Authoritarian Times* Daniel Solove /Crackdowns on immigrants. Surveillance of abortion providers and abortion seekers. Harassment of critics. These maneuvers in the demagogue’s playbook would be harder to pull off with better digital privacy./ As the United States and much of the world turn back to the darkness of authoritarianism that blighted the previous century, we must remember that privacy is one of the bulwarks against the power of authoritarian governments. Unfortunately, we’re living in a more intensive surveillance society than ever before, and our privacy laws are ill equipped to protect us against government access to our personal data. In the years to come, the federal government and many state governments might engage in surveillance and data gathering as they round up immigrants, punish people for seeking, providing, or assisting abortions, and attack gender-affirming health care. The government might use personal data in its effort to retaliate against those who stand in its way. Such efforts might be assisted by mobs of vigilantes who will use personal data to dox, threaten, embarrass, and harm anyone they don’t like — much like the way many people eagerly assisted totalitarian regimes in finding “undesirables” and rooting out and punishing dissenters. Our best hope for protection is that legislators in Massachusetts and other states who are concerned about these risks take steps now to upgrade their privacy laws. Writing more than two decades ago, I critiqued how digital dossiers existed for all of us <http://ssrn.com/abstract=313301> — extensive repositories of personal data gathered by companies — and how the government could readily gain access to this data. The Fourth Amendment provides minimal to no protection for much of our personal data in the digital age. This is because of the Third-Party Doctrine, a misguided rule manufactured by the US Supreme Court in the 1970s that holds that whenever personal data is in the hands of third parties, people no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it — and as a result, there’s no Fourth Amendment protection. The Third-Party Doctrine is especially problematic and ill-suited to our modern times, when so much of our personal data is in the hands of third parties such as credit card companies, search companies, cloud service providers, online merchants, data brokers, social media companies, and app creators. When the government demands that companies turn over personal data and let authorities use surveillance technologies, will companies refuse to cooperate? If history repeats itself, the answer is no. Last century, many companies supplied the Nazis with the technology <https://time.com/5290043/nazi-history-eu-data-privacy-gdpr/> and information they wanted <https://www.magellantv.com/articles/nazi-data-science-the-dark-history-that-...>. Here at home, when the federal government demanded data from companies after 9/11, they readily turned it over — even when it was against their own privacy policies. Even companies that are not eager to cooperate often buckle under government pressure. [...] continua qui: https://teachprivacy.com/privacy-in-authoritarian-times/