LAUSR

Carol Gould’s article offers a powerful argument against the sufficiency of informed consent in an age of surveillance capitalism. In this review, I assess the three main claims that Gould makes in her article, namely that (1) democratic control is required by the all-affected principle; (2) democratic control is a means of ensuring that surveillance corporations and governments track public, rather than merely private, interests; and (3) democratic control is constitutive of freedom as self-development and self-transformation. We are all by now familiar with what Shoshana Zuboff has called ‘surveillance capitalism’. Every time we go for a run, surf the net, turn on a ‘smart’ TV, use our mobile, book a flight, or get a loan, we leave a stream of information regarding our location, desires, interests, anxieties, number of children, income, wealth, and many other things. This information – ‘data exhaust’ – is stored, tracked, analysed, and sold. The search engine that Google provides and the social media platform that Facebook champions have become what Zuboff calls mere ‘interfaces’ for gathering data about us, analysing it, and selling it on (for example, to advertisers and political campaigns). The real money these days lies in that information, not in social media or search engines as such. Companies, together with governments (most prominently, those of China and the US), are investing heavily in using this data and the algorithms used for processing it to form predictions about our behaviour. Companies are interested because this information provides valuable insight into what gets people to buy their products and services. Governments are interested because it provides a powerful tool for social control. US police departments routinely use this information to identify suspects. China is now perfecting a ‘social credit’ system that gives citizens points on the basis of not only their creditworthiness but also their willingness to take care of ill relatives, to stop for pedestrians, and to do good works. In turn, those whose points have been taken away are black-listed from getting loans, buying plane or train tickets, or getting job promotions. In her article, Carol Gould argues that the informed consent that is at the heart of surveillance capitalism – the myriad terms and conditions that we are asked to approve every time we use an online service and give up our data in exchange – is flawed. It is flawed both because we are ill-informed about the uses that will be made of that data and, more importantly, because of the limited control it gives us over the economic and social structures that have made informed consent necessary. Her solution is to enhance our democratic oversight over data use, both via traditional channels (political and legislative action) and via the governing boards of ‘surveillance’ corporations. I © Society for Applied Philosophy, 2019, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 36, No. 2, May 2019 doi: 10.1111/japp.12363