Economy and Society · 2020 · 176 citations · 23 references
ComputingPublic PolicyRegulatory PolicyData EthicsData ManagementIt GovernanceData GovernanceData PrivacyData ProtectionPrivacy LawPrivacy PolicySurveillance PolicyData Protection RegulationEconomic Development StrategyPersonal DataPersonal Data GovernancePersonal Data PrivacyPrivacySurveillance GovernanceSurveillance Studies
Technology giants, operating under weak regulatory oversight, have expanded personal data collection and analysis, creating new power dynamics known as surveillance capitalism, prompting the EU and China to adopt major big‑data policies—GDPR as a reactive privacy safeguard and China’s social credit system as a proactive state‑craft surveillance architecture. This paper investigates the social and economic implications of the EU and China’s divergent strategies for moving beyond surveillance capitalism. The authors employ a comparative analytical approach to assess these implications.
Technology giants, bolstered by weak regulatory oversight, have expanded capacities for personal data collection and analysis. This has resulted in a new set of power dynamics and logics of accumulation collectively referred to as surveillance capitalism. In response, the EU and China have adopted major policies on big data with implications for future social and economic development. Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation is a reactive response, asserting individual privacy and placing limits on corporate use of personal data. In contrast, China’s social credit system is a proactive response, combining surveillance architectures and AI technologies for purposes of statecraft. Using a comparative approach, this paper analyses the social and economic implications of two societies attempting to move beyond surveillance capitalism.
23