Since the 21st century a new type of surveillance was developed which attacks our privacy. It is not about destroying passion and demand anymore it is about fuelling them and to predicate on them. This way we can’t barely resist the surveillance and protect our privacy. The individual freedom is threatened by this consumption-capitalistically system. It conditions the members of society increasingly without exercising coercion. There is the appearance of a quantity of life choices, but the framework conditions are prescribed. As a consumer the individual is often forced to disclose personal information by buying a product. In our society we are forced to have a digital identity. For being successful we need to have a digital identity. For our job, for university and our social life it is a prerequisite to own a laptop or even a smartphone. My dad once didn’t get a job from a client because he didn’t have a smartphone. And this was the point when my father decided to buy a smartphone because it was necessary for his successes.
The purchase of a smartphone is expected, but at the same time there is no way of not reducing our privacy by buying it. The wave of using a smartphone would implicate the withdrawal not only of the social life. The usage of technical devices like the smartphone is already firmly anchored in the society. This way we are (partial) forced to give up our privacy.

We are trapped in a society where it is almost impossible to not have a digital identity as a part of our personal identity. And consequently we also have a digital privacy we need to protect. But the latest development shows, that there is a tendency away from the paralysis. The awareness of the digital privacy as something which is needed to be protected rises. And also a market develops which provides possibilities to do so. Lately the Messenger Telegram gets more and more popular and it has the potential to replace Whats App in the future. The vision of Telegram is to “make messaging safe again” without advertisement and subscription fees and safe from hacker attacks. We are not necessarily at the mercy of the battle of the 4 giants Apple, Google, facebook and amazon (AGfa). #communication



The idea of privacy was formed in a time where the digital world didn’t exist. Now we are facing the challenge how to align this concept to today’s conditions. Another approach is to let the old ideas rest and to open up to a world of post privacy.

Post Privacy is a movement in Europe and in America since 2009. The members believe that privacy is a relic of the post digital era and with it also the protection of privacy online. Privacy is already gone in the internet. This should be accepted or people should turn away from it. But this fact is not meant in a negative way. This is based on a social vision of a discrimination-free world without a need of privacy. If one’s behaviour is never rated bad, we don’t need to hide anything.
There is no clear answer of the question what is privacy and what is public. The borders blur and that makes it relative. But if all data of every person would be freely accessible, there would be no power connected with it anymore. So it is not about to expose everyone, it is about to balance the power structures. The isolation of the private should be dissolved. In this way persons can meet each other who thought to be alone with their interests. #perception



But there are also a lot of people with an opposite opinion than the “Post-Privacy-Idiots”, like Constanze Kurz, speaker of the CCC (Chaos Computer Club) named them. Opponent of the movement like her are thinking about the approach as “short-term and unreflected”. She is blaming the representatives of this theory to mix up the “transparency, both large and small”. Also they find the complete disclosure naïve by the reason that the business model of companies like Google and Facebook is based on the private data of their users and also the desire for data of the government should be infinite.
Martin Schulz is comparing the digital with the industrial revolution in an essay. Out of this he gathered the obligation of the politics to shape legislative initiatives. In this point powerful interests must get enforced. It is about big social questions and decisions that will influence the development of the society significantly. The only solution would be laws that are regimenting digital actions.
Since the EU data protection guidelines are based on the year 1995 it is obvious, that they must get renewed. During the 21th century there were a lot of changes at the expense of privacy and the governments have to react on them. Governmental laws could protect the consumer from transferring private data to a third party. They need to obligate companies like Facebook to only use the data appropriately. The legislation must be adapted to the new situation. The government should create a minimum standard of privacy and should guarantee the actual realization. Since the digital revolution is international, also the legislation must operate supranational. The EU already has planned a data protection basic regulation, but not at least because of the resistance of certain countries it is not transcribed jet. Probably also because of supposed conflicts of interests with other governmental competences, like the internal and external safety of a state. Another possibility would be the regimentation of the technical devices itself. The government could control the production and import with regard to ethnic aspects. Possible technical consequences could be determined and lead to a ban. The security of privacy can’t only happen on a national base. To enable a comprehensive protection of privacy a global solution is mandatory. In this point the EU is required to take a leading role. They must follow up the standardisation of data protection and forward the cooperation with other states. “If we are not leading, no one else will do it. Out of this recognition results a duty requiring action. This is about not less than the political moulding of an epoch.”

We are facing the choice of whether post privacy or the fight for the protection of a pre-digital arisen idea of privacy. Maybe the solution is somewhere in between.