Technology, Between Everyone’s Safety and My Privacy

How Much of Your Day Is Being Recorded?

From the moment you wake up and check messages on your smartphone, your day begins within a network of technology. When you leave your home, CCTV cameras in alleys capture your movements, and your route is recorded as data when you pass through subway gates. Conversations with friends on messenger apps, the product lists you browsed for a long time on online shopping sites, even a single word you searched carelessly—our daily lives are intricately woven into an invisible tapestry of massive data.

This data sometimes makes life more convenient and acts as a strong shield protecting us from danger. It plays a crucial role in tracking violent criminals, predicting disasters, and reuniting missing children with their families. But a chilling question arises: “Is it really okay for someone else to look through all these records?” In front of the double-edged sword called technology, the value of everyone’s ‘safety’ and the right to my ‘privacy’ stand in tense opposition. At the heart of this tension are IT companies, governments, and us as individuals.

First Perspective: “How Should Good Technology Be Used?” – The IT Companies’ Dilemma

There are IT companies that started with the ideal of making the world a better place. They want to change people’s lives with innovative technology and sometimes illuminate the dark corners of society. In fact, many companies use their AI video analysis or big data processing technologies for public good, contributing to crime prevention and solving social problems.

But one day, a government agency requests: “To track a suspect threatening national security, please provide all communication records and location data of a specific user.” The company faces deep anguish.

• Promise of trust with users: The company’s greatest asset is the trust of its users. It has grown based on the promise, “We will protect your data safely.” The moment this promise is broken, users will turn away, and the company’s very existence may be at risk. Voices inside say, “Protecting our customers is the top priority.”
• Weight of social responsibility: What if a terrible tragedy occurs because the information was not provided? The company would face criticism for “allowing a disaster that could have been prevented with our technology.” The responsibility of having good technology but remaining passive, and the social pressure to prevent greater risks, weigh heavily.

Ultimately, companies walk a tightrope between the conflicting values of ‘user protection’ and ‘public cooperation.’ What information to provide, through what legal procedures, and how far to go—without clear social consensus and standards, the ethical dilemma of those who hold technology deepens.

Second Perspective: “Where Is Protection and Where Does Surveillance Begin?” – The Government’s Difficult Task

One of the government’s most important missions is to protect the lives and safety of its citizens. The government wants to use every possible means to protect people from crime and disasters. In modern society, few tools are as powerful and efficient as ‘technology.’

The government wants to install more intelligent CCTV cameras and introduce integrated data analysis systems to predict and block risks in advance. It persuades citizens, saying, “For everyone’s safety, a little inconvenience and transparency must be accepted,” accelerating the construction of a dense social safety net using technology.

But the government also has the duty to guarantee citizens’ fundamental rights, such as privacy and the right to exist anonymously.

• The temptation of efficient control: There is always a realistic threat that information collected to protect citizens could be misused as a tool for surveillance and control by a ‘Big Brother.’ Voices warning against abuse of power and stigmatizing ‘potential criminals’ echo throughout society.
• Laws and systems lagging behind technology: Technology advances at the speed of light, but social consensus and legal standards on how to use it progress at a snail’s pace. The government faces the difficult task of defining the precarious boundary between ‘legal information collection’ and ‘unjust invasion of privacy.’

Ultimately, the government bears the heavy responsibility of constantly questioning and finding answers about how far it can intervene under the name of ‘protection’ without violating the core value of ‘freedom.’

Third Perspective: “What Do I Give Up and What Do I Protect?” – The Individual’s Choice

Now, it’s our own story. We want to fully enjoy the convenience and safety technology offers. We marvel at content recommendation services that perfectly target our tastes and find it hard to set out without navigation analyzing our routes to show the fastest way. We also have a vague belief that nearby CCTV will protect us in dangerous situations.

But at the same time, we never want our trivial habits, intimate thoughts, and precious relationships to be fully exposed to someone else.

• What is the price of convenience?: Every time we install a new app, we face countless ‘consent’ buttons. Rather than carefully reading what information is collected and how it is used, many of us mindlessly click ‘Agree to All’ for immediate convenience. But if the price of that convenience is gradually giving up pieces of our private domain, what choice should we make?
• “Am I okay with being watched?”: Some may think, “I have done nothing wrong, so it doesn’t matter.” But a society where everyone watches and is watched can intimidate us and stifle free thought and creative expression. Each of us must ask ourselves if we truly want a society where all our actions are evaluated and predicted under the pretext of safety.

We are the agents who must constantly balance convenience, safety, and privacy to find our own answers. It is an era where we cannot blindly reject technology nor accept it uncritically. We need to be wiser and more aware users than ever before.

Conclusion: A Promise for a New Future, the ‘Digital Social Contract’

Technology itself is neither good nor evil. The values and agreements of the society that uses it determine its face. It is time to stop the zero-sum game where IT companies, governments, and individuals only assert their own positions and seek sustainable coexistence based on trust. To this end, we must establish the following principles of a ‘digital social contract’ together.

1. Role of IT Companies: ‘Responsible Innovators’

Companies that create technology must bear heavy social responsibilities along with their great power. Beyond profit, they must lead innovation that contributes to humanity.

• Privacy by Design: From the earliest stages of planning products and services, privacy protection must be a core element. The principle should be to collect only the ‘minimum necessary’ data essential for service provision, not ‘as much as possible.’
• Mandatory Transparency Reports: Companies should regularly and transparently disclose what types of data requests they receive from governments, how much data they provide, and under what legal grounds. This will help maintain user trust and serve as an effective check against government power abuse.
• Active Development of Technical Alternatives: Investing in technologies like ‘pseudonymized data’ that cannot identify individuals or ‘federated learning’ where AI trains on devices without sending data to central servers is necessary to balance privacy and data utilization.

2. Role of the Government: ‘Wise Mediator’

The government should not remain merely a regulator or controller. It must delicately and wisely lead social discussions and find balance so that all citizens can enjoy the benefits of technological progress without violating fundamental rights.

• Establish Independent Data Oversight Bodies: Create independent oversight organizations composed of technology experts, legal professionals, and citizen representatives to monitor and check whether government or institutional data collection and use are lawful and ethical.
• Flexible Legal Systems Adapted to Technological Change: Build a ‘technology-neutral’ legal framework that is interpreted and applied flexibly based on the principle of ‘protecting citizens’ privacy,’ rather than laws tied to specific technologies.
• Activate Social Public Forums: Institutionalize processes to thoroughly discuss and reach social consensus on the impact of new technologies before their introduction. Expand channels for citizens to participate as stakeholders in policy decisions.

3. Role of Individuals: ‘Awake Data Sovereigns’

The future society depends on the choices of each of us. We must become ‘data sovereigns’ who actively voice their rights as true owners of their data, not passive consumers who give up their rights for convenience.

• Strengthen Digital Literacy Education: Develop the ability to clearly understand and control how one’s data is collected, used, and valued. This will be a vital survival skill for future generations.
• Normalize Privacy Protection Tools: Small but meaningful actions like using encrypted messengers and enabling browser tracking protection are necessary to protect one’s information.
• Voices Through Solidarity and Participation: Individual power is limited, but when like-minded citizens unite, they become strong. Actively express opinions through civic groups on corporate data policies or government surveillance laws and demand better directions.

Technology ultimately reflects our society. How we treat each other and what values we hold important will be mirrored in this technological reflection. When responsible innovation by companies, wise mediation by governments, and proactive participation by individuals harmonize, we can finally make technology a true tool for human happiness.