Digital Privacy: Smart Technology and the Naive Consumer

By Leonel Mata

Recent reports concerning the extent to which companies, such as Facebook, have been acquiring and disseminating information of individuals across the world have highlighted the fact that privacy issues do not only concern how governments make use of personal information, but how private companies have been making use of it as well. The pervasiveness of technology, combined with its necessity in the modern world, has made issue of convenience versus protection an all-important debate.

To be a part of the modern world one must be connected to it constantly. The main way of achieving this is through the internet, and the main way the internet is accessed is through our cellphones. Long gone are the days when you could easily get by using physical mail and a landline telephone. While the rise of smartphones has made our lives easier, creating a quick and easy way to access information and to contact others almost instantaneously, it has also become a way to gather information on the individual in ways that were impossible before. As technology has advanced so too has the amount of information that is being acquired by both private and government entities. Despite this rapid scaling of access to personal information, the law has been slow to react and protect the individual in an adequate manner.

In China, one can see how advancements in technology have provided infinite gold-mines of information. China’s government has taken a keen interest in controlling how social media works on popular platforms, such as WeChat, Baidu Tieba, and Sina Weibo, out of a belief that information being disseminated on these platforms can disrupt social order and lead to the violation of laws.

China has also enacted a policy known as “real-name registration” where users must register their personal information with the necessary provider before they can do things like post comments on forums or articles. China’s step toward erasing anonymity is done under the guise of making the community safer and holding individual’s accountable for their statements and actions. However, it also has the effect of dissuading individuals from stating contrary views to those in charge. Naturally, this creates an additional barrier for individuals’ who seek to advocate for change, but it also has a chilling effect on the ability for a community to be able to discuss issues freely and openly without fear of retribution.

Out of a desire to access a larger market, companies regularly acquiesce to rules and regulations imposed by countries such as China. While it is true that Google has rejected some of China’s more restrictive and invasive policies, they have announced that they would be returning to China. Even without American companies such as Google, local companies such as Baidu have grown tremendously and have had no issue agreeing to the terms stipulated by the Chinese government.

Often overlooked is the fact that concern for one’s privacy is not merely an issue for those who live or visit countries such as China. Governments and companies alike in western democracies have increasingly made use of the pervasiveness of technology in order to acquire as much information as they can on each individual. In the United States, people have seen the rise of the National Security Agency and its ability to invade the privacy of individual’s when the government can justify that it is necessary. However, what is more alarming is the increase in the acquisition of personal information by private companies, such as Facebook, or internet service providers, such as Comcast.

In our daily lives we are regularly giving away bits and pieces of our privacy. When we use Fitbit, the company is given access to where and when you have been somewhere. Most shocking to the public has been the realization that when we participate in social media, such as Facebook, we give away an enormous amount of data that then has the potential to be misused and abused by companies.. These issues are not new ones, in fact, Facebook has been involved in privacy violations before, but has been able to come out of each one relatively unscathed because, when it comes to technology, the public prefers convenience.

While privacy advocates have been up in arms regarding the increasingly invasive nature of governments and companies across the globe, the public has been less concerned. Traditionally, when dealing with privacy our protections were written taking into account physical invasions into our space as well as physical collecting of our data. However, the world has changed significantly since these protections were written. Nowadays, an invasion of privacy can occur out of sight and out of mind. This has made the public much more accepting of giving away their privacy because it does not noticeably affect them. Recently, thanks to scandals surrounding companies such as Cambridge Analytica and Grindr, people have become more concerned regarding the extent to which their data is being used. It is unclear as to whether this will be enough to finally force governments to act to properly protect the rights of the individual against blatant misuses of their personal information.

It is true that certain companies have taken a number of steps to better safeguard the personal information of their customers, often to the government’s annoyance, but even these companies have proven to be susceptible to the demands of the government if there is a significant financial incentive to do so. This demonstrates that it cannot be left to companies to self-regulate how they protect the data of individuals. Thus, in order to safeguard our rights, governments must act to pass legislation imposing harsher personal privacy regulations and harsher penalties for those who do not comply with these regulations. The EU has done just this when it passed the General Data Protection Regulation back in 2016. Unsurprisingly, there has already been pushback from companies about enacting the EU requirements globally.

As for governments, such as China, who are more frequently the abuser rather than the protector of rights, the public should engage not only domestically, but at an international level  in order to create change in how abusive governments are treating their citizens’ right to privacy. Even for government’s that are more receptive to public criticism, one must be vigilant as they continue to squeeze away at one’s privacy. If action is not taken at the local, national, and international levels, then the right to privacy will soon be a thing of the past as individuals are taken advantage of by both public and private entities.

Leonel Mata is a third-year law student at The University of Texas School of Law. He is a member of the 2017-2018 Working Paper Series Committee, Submissions Editor of the Texas Journal of International Law, and a member of the Jessup International Moot Court team.

Mixed and Clashing Patterns in Fashion and Between Shanzhai Culture and Copyright Law—A Unique Perspective for Women Designers

20 JUL 2017

Sara Liao’s article, “Fashioning China,” delves into the juxtaposition of copyright laws and creative women entrepreneurs in China. Shanzhai culture refers to the detailed-oriented reproduction of clothing, accessories, and other consumer goods. Copyright laws and governmental entities claim these goods are counterfeit and damage the economy. For the women entrepreneurs, however, these reproductions are a source of livelihood and a form of artistic expression. Shanzhai culture promotes an alternative view of their work that does not characterize the makers as criminals manufacturing counterfeits, but as artists creating fashion and as women aspiring to a greater life—the Chinese dream.

The paper details the design and manufacturing process of reproduction starting with an online polling process and ending with delivery of the reproduced project. The items produced through Shanzhai are not the cheap knock-offs many associate with made-in-China counterfeit products. Instead, these products are intricate. Immense detail is required down to the stitching and attaching buttons to a garment.

The strength of this paper lies in the author’s ability to weave the human element and the true impact on women’s livelihoods into the legal discussion of the government restrictions on counterfeiting. Traditionally, discussion of copyright law and product reproduction are narrowly focused on the economic harm befalling the companies whose products are being reproduced. These accounts are cold and the actors are nameless. Instead, this paper shines light on the faces of the women who create products by giving them space in the narrative. The paper exposes the true complexity of the tension between Shanzhai culture and government regulation and gives the reader room to consider each aspect of the debate.

There are ample opportunities to further this type of research investigating the cultural and political implications of the fashion industry in China and throughout the rest of the world. There is much to be dissected from the growing feminisms of these producers and business women. Further inquiry into the implications of Shanzhai on intellectual property laws and the rights of these property holders would be illuminating to discover the cause of these problems as well as some potential solutions. Where is the exact departure between creative appreciation and a copyright violation? Where exactly will the line for protected speech be drawn? Is it in a designer’s sketchbook or a line in a settlement of litigation? Further research is necessary to advise those who might be trying to bridge these cultural divides to protect freedom of expression as well as protect individual property rights.

Additionally, analysis on free speech issues and expressive product creations could create a wealth of opportunity for scholarly work. This individualistic approach to speech strengthens with the rise of social media. In today’s information age, in this political climate where the internet and e-commerce is itself in a precarious position due to the potentiality of “net-neutrality” policies, and with globalization blending cultures at an ever accelerating rate, speech issues are a “hot” topic.