The authors also insist on the harmful consequences for democracy
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2025 3:21 am
Thus, unlike business assets that are traditionally protected by company secrecy – which do not affect, at least directly, citizen-consumers – we are talking here about assets that, although they may be considered to be owned by economic agents, directly interfere in the lives of citizen-consumers, and may compromise existential and patrimonial situations of the highest relevance, as well as the enjoyment of fundamental rights of the most important.
I am not denying that some of the data processing that occurs bulk sms france in surveillance capitalism can occur lawfully and generate value that needs to be protected. What I am saying is that, given the usual characteristics of data capitalism, in which the original raw material is an asset of the data subject and data processing usually affects them directly, this asset can hardly be considered exclusive to the data processing agent, much less be subject to absolute protection through business secrecy.
On the contrary, the absolute and watertight view of business secrecy is incompatible not only with the fundamental right to data protection, but also with several other constitutional guarantees, such as due process and full defense. After all, people cannot defend themselves against something they do not know or understand. From the moment we are judged by algorithms, we need to know how this judgment is carried out, so that any competition concerns that justify the protection of business secrecy need to be weighed against the fundamental rights of those affected by algorithmic judgments.
I am not denying that some of the data processing that occurs bulk sms france in surveillance capitalism can occur lawfully and generate value that needs to be protected. What I am saying is that, given the usual characteristics of data capitalism, in which the original raw material is an asset of the data subject and data processing usually affects them directly, this asset can hardly be considered exclusive to the data processing agent, much less be subject to absolute protection through business secrecy.
On the contrary, the absolute and watertight view of business secrecy is incompatible not only with the fundamental right to data protection, but also with several other constitutional guarantees, such as due process and full defense. After all, people cannot defend themselves against something they do not know or understand. From the moment we are judged by algorithms, we need to know how this judgment is carried out, so that any competition concerns that justify the protection of business secrecy need to be weighed against the fundamental rights of those affected by algorithmic judgments.