The mere possibility of harmful data use, not actual harm, curtails autonomy

Evidence

Automatic data collection poses a danger to autonomy at a second, deeper level, not because its actual uses are always harmful (indeed, some might be beneficial) but because the possibility of harmful use distorts the space in which individuals live and act. This is what some writers call the “chilling” effect, which is the impact that the power to collect and hold data on a large scale has on individuals’ ability to think of themselves as free actors. Political theorist Quentin Skinner’s comment on the Snowden revelations is decisive: “Not merely by the fact that someone is reading my emails but also by the fact that someone has the power to do so should they choose leaves us at the mercy of arbitrary power… . What is offensive to liberty is the very existence of such arbitrary power.” — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 498

Categorization

• QUESTION: The ‘chilling effect’ claim is contested — is there empirical evidence that surveillance awareness actually changes behavior, or is Skinner’s account purely theoretical?
• XREF: Directly parallels the reader’s attention/surveillance school, where the structural fact of surveillance rather than its concrete use is the harm. — connects to: Data appropriation threatens the minimal space of the self — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 75; Data collection itself, not just its uses, harms the self’s integrity — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 473; Opt-in data sharing is coercive because refusing degrades product functionality — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 739 (+1 more)