Around the world, concern is growing about digital surveillance. Widespread tracking of users by apps, data processing by Internet giants, and covert government activity have produced a groundswell of support for strengthening online privacy rights. This has resulted in some apparent legislative victories for the cause, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the US. 

Despite this surge in support for privacy, we are facing a situation where routine surveillance of citizens will continue to be normalized through convenience. But what good are they if people voluntarily hand over their data anyway?

In Spain, residents are assigned what is called a NIF number, a unique identifier used for tax and other purposes, similar to the social security number in the U.S. The result is that citizens routinely provide their most sensitive identifying information during routine daily activities. For convenience, they are willing to give the government a record of everything they do. As an added benefit, the government enters these voluntarily provided NIF numbers into a national lottery, a significant incentive.

There are more examples. In Germany, security measures introduced to combat a new virus have begun to become accepted aspects of everyday life. To enter a clothing store, people had to provide their personal data to trace contacts. Everyone complied.

In each of these cases, people are free not to provide their personal information, but they choose to do so. This is not a scenario that current privacy laws are designed to protect against.

Most Germans trust their government to do the right thing, and the likelihood that Berlin will use the data it has for nefarious purposes seems low. But this is a miscalculation. No constitution or set of political rules can promise that only wise people will hold positions of power. The whole point of democracy and personal privacy is to protect against the inevitable scenarios in which authorities are reckless, incompetent or cruel. 

What about the GDPR? On closer inspection. It seems as much a statement against American cultural hegemony, in the form of tech monopolies like Google and Amazon, as it does a defense of individual privacy. And while governments are doing to strengthen consumer privacy through performance laws, they are also busy setting up incentives for people to voluntarily submit to surveillance without realizing it. 

Many people around the world respond to statements with something like, "It doesn't bother me because I have nothing to hide." At issue is the fundamental question of who has the right to see our most intimate spaces, and whether we have access to truly private spaces in the first place.

Does the government have the right to see every financial transaction I make, and do my neighbors have the right to know how much money is in my bank account? In many countries, the answers to these questions are obvious, but not the same. In some Nordic countries, you can search anyone's assets in a public database but in the United States, this scenario is unthinkable - somewhat contradictory, right?  

But regardless of cultural mores, what is essential is that we, as citizens, can determine where the boundaries are drawn. We need to develop protection for our rights and from the accumulation of seemingly harmless requests. If we don't, we may someday find that we have lost any right to privacy or autonomy.