Negotiating Privacy: The Right Roles and the Right Regulation

Privacy, technology, and policy

In our day-to-day interactions, we consistently exercise discretion concerning our confidentiality. Whether divulging personal details to close relatives, online acquaintances, major corporations, or governmental entities, we make these choices based on the necessity of that information for the other party and the expectation of receiving a corresponding service or product in return. For instance, a company may require financial information for payment processing or identity details to adhere to KYC or AML regulations.

Ultimately, both individual and corporate users have the prerogative to tailor their privacy settings based on the specific context. The approach to online privacy should mirror this principle. Genuine privacy entails individuals having complete ownership of their information and the ability to be discerning about its dissemination.

In a well-functioning society, this may occasionally involve disclosures to meet business or legal prerequisites. The objective is to empower users by making them cognizant of what, how, why, and to whom they reveal their sensitive details and providing them with adequate tools to manage this process.

Revealing secrets selectively

Nevertheless, there’s a prevalent misconception in our discussions about privacy, and it stems from the current structure of the internet, which relies on centralized entities to amass and oversee the data of billions of users. This framework has led individuals to perceive privacy as a binary choice—either accept it as is or forego it in favor of convenience.

Fortunately, we now find ourselves in a technological landscape where we can authentically replicate real-life privacy experiences. Web3’s infrastructure reinstates users to a position where they can avail themselves of company services while retaining control over their information, eliminating the need for it to be stored on a remote server. Moreover, zero-knowledge proofs empower users to substantiate claims without disclosing any sensitive information whatsoever.

Whose choice is it?

This brings us to the query of who has the authority to make decisions. Achieving a balance is essential in determining how information is exchanged among individuals, businesses, and government institutions.

The discretion to disclose personal information should consistently reside with individuals. Nevertheless, government institutions retain the prerogative to determine when and how to enforce their terms. This dynamic places individuals in a scenario where they are motivated to furnish information autonomously in exchange for services, benefits, or protection.

In the same way that individuals can establish their privacy preferences, businesses similarly possess the right to uphold their policy requirements. It’s not unreasonable for businesses dependent on ad revenue to stipulate specific disclosures in exchange for enhanced services. This decentralized approach allows both ends of the market to determine what they are willing to accept or reject, eliminating the need for a centralized intermediary.

This brings us to the function of governments. It would be unrealistic to anticipate that governments won’t retain a level of authority over crucial information, particularly concerning national security. Everyday concerns also hold significance.

The right understanding

In the majority of privacy-preserving protocols within web3, there exists a cryptographic method for a user to disclose the transaction’s origin, often utilizing approaches like view keys. This grants users the capability to eliminate anonymity at their discretion, underscoring the importance of individual choice. Web3 essentially renders privacy more negotiable than ever.

Nonetheless, there are undoubtedly new boundaries to establish. However, these boundaries should align with a correct comprehension of web3 technology. From a regulatory standpoint, the approach to overseeing the roles of individuals, businesses, and governments should prioritize ensuring the “negotiability” of privacy.

Intelligence exchanges and where privacy matters

Let’s scrutinize recent advancements in web3 privacy, particularly in the context of Arkham Intelligence’s dox-to-earn business model, through this lens.

In a world where virtually anything can be monetized, the pursuit of profit sometimes neglects the potential long-term negative impacts on a free society. This lack of consideration for consequences poses a threat to the safety and welfare of individuals and communities.

Furthermore, these repercussions transcend financial implications. There exists a tangible risk of divulging wallet addresses and the personal details of family members, including children, parents, siblings, spouses, and friends.

An Intelligence Exchange seeks to compromise the financial privacy of individuals in the web3 realm, fostering a culture that diminishes the importance of financial privacy and privacy in a broader sense. This business model diminishes the individual’s right to privacy, subjecting it to the influence of online mobs.

This careless exposure has the potential to endanger individuals, necessitating the involvement of governments to ensure their safety. If web3 reinstates privacy as an individual prerogative, making it a negotiable aspect, services like Arkham should be the focal point of regulatory discussions.

Founded in 2018, the Aleph Zero blockchain was established to provide Web3 builders with a swift, secure, scalable, and privacy-preserving environment. The project successfully secured $15 million in funding from venture capital and the community. It entered the broader markets in 2022 following meticulous regulatory compliance measures in Switzerland and a thorough peer review of its core technology. With a team comprising 50 experts in cryptography, engineering, and business, Aleph Zero is currently dedicated to incubating application-specific use cases that leverage zero-knowledge and multi-party computation technologies.