Mandated data-disclosure interrupts the presumed naturalness of routine data collection.

Evidence

The GDPR requires data collectors to give an ordinary-language account to every user of what data they hold and for what purpose. This approach assumes that lack of such information damages the underlying right of each person to control her information boundaries, hence the need for an immediate alert when any activity potentially breaches those boundaries. The GDPR’s practical requirements interrupt the supposed “naturalness” of data collection from individuals by requiring individuals to be informed of what is going on with their data. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 554

Categorization

• DEFINE: Surfaces the GDPR’s underlying model: information asymmetry as the mechanism of harm, and disclosure as the corrective — a distinct causal account of data harm worth contrasting with attention-based accounts.
• QUESTION: The claim that disclosure ‘interrupts’ naturalness of collection is contestable — consent fatigue literature (Solove, etc.) questions whether notice-and-choice actually restores boundary control. Worth chasing.