The contemporary Internet has significantly enhanced individuals’ lives, rendering their connections to information, services, and social interactions more immediate and convenient. Daily shopping, work, education, and pleasure can be efficiently accomplished over the Internet, thereby minimizing time expenditure and enhancing productivity. Nonetheless, in the current Internet landscape, privacy and security concerns are becoming severe.
Risks To User Privacy
Users typically need to register and furnish personal information when utilizing web pages or applications. Upon completing registration, users must consent to the platform’s terms prior to utilizing the service. Nevertheless, the protracted and intricate user agreements and privacy policies result in the majority of users neglecting to scrutinize them thoroughly, with certain data-collecting stipulations frequently obscured inside these convoluted contracts. Users often cannot decline the terms that entail the collecting of personal information, as refusal to accept them precludes access to the platform or service.
(Guardian News and Media, 2010).
Since 1998, the Pew Research Centre has administered over 100 studies regarding Internet privacy, indicating that as technology advances, public apprehensions about privacy hazards have progressively intensified. (Pew Research Center, 1999). In 1999, 54% of respondents voiced concerns regarding privacy infringements. By 2018, 91% felt they had lost control over their data, with merely 9% expressing trust in social media companies to safeguard their information, illustrating the escalating gravity of privacy dilemmas and distrust in platform governance. (Rainie, 2018).
Absence of transparency and accountability frameworks
Currently, Internet platforms serve not only as venues for information sharing and communication but have also gained significant authority to establish their regulations and govern users. These platforms increasingly wield influence, dictating the dissemination of information and impacting individuals’ daily lives and behaviors. Suzor noted that these platforms possess the authority to establish and impose regulations, while users often lack effective choices and complaint mechanisms, leading to an excessive concentration of platform power and further intensifying the deficiency of transparency and accountability measures. (Suzor, 2019).
Internet platforms typically depend on proprietary regulations and algorithm-driven automated methods for content management, rather than public involvement or oversight by external governmental bodies. Social media platforms can unilaterally determine content visibility, user account accessibility, information designation or removal, and influence public opinion through algorithmic recommendation algorithms. This power disparity relegates users to a passive role. Not only can users not participate in the formulation of platform rules, but they also lack effective supervision of platform decisions. This indicates that users’ speech, conduct, and personal data may be influenced by the platform’s internal algorithms and financial motives, rather than by equitable and unbiased criteria. The absence of openness in content management by the platform complicates users’ understanding of the reasons behind content deletion or account suspension.
Also, many appeal procedures are often ineffective and unclear, so diminishing the safeguarding of users’ rights. Many social media networks frequently fail to provide explicit justifications for user bans or content deletions, and the appeal process can be protracted, convoluted, or devoid of manual review. Users encounter challenges in obtaining equitable review opportunities following a ban or content removal, which undermines freedom of speech and highlights deficiencies in platform governance regarding fairness and transparency.
(Uber, 2025).
Can Individuals Circumvent Digital Surveillance by Deleting Their Social Media Accounts?
Numerous individuals assume that deleting their social media accounts can eliminate monitoring and tracking in the digital realm. Nonetheless, this is not the situation. The existence of Data Remnants and Shadow Data in the digital realm enables the retention, dissemination, or utilization of personal data even after a user has actively deleted it, complicating the process of complete erasure.
Data Remnants
(Team, N. G., 2025).
Data remnants indicate that despite users deleting personal information, the data may persist in server storage, system backups, cloud caches, and third-party databases. For instance, platforms like Facebook and Google typically store pertinent data for 90 days or longer following users’ deletion requests to fulfill data recovery necessities or regulatory obligations. This implies that throughout this timeframe, the data may be accessible to insiders, appropriated by hackers, or inadvertently disclosed owing to security weaknesses inside the platform. These residual data may also extend beyond the platform itself and synchronize with the databases of partners or marketers, so amplifying the potential danger of leaking. Even if users believe they have “erased” all information, their personal data may still be retained in the digital realm, so remaining susceptible to potential privacy threats. The 2022 Twitter data breach underscored this issue. During that period, hackers leveraged a vulnerability in the Twitter API to unlawfully acquire information from over 5.4 million users, encompassing sensitive data such as email addresses and phone numbers. Despite Twitter’s assertion of rectifying the issue, the data of numerous users remained compromised, and even individuals who had previously deactivated their accounts still had their pertinent information retained. (Abrams, 2022). This instance illustrates that social media sites often lack full transparency about the storage and administration of user data, and individuals have little control over the whereabouts of their information.
The breach of user data poses numerous threats, including prevalent issues such as identity theft, online fraud, and unsolicited communications, as well as potential broader societal implications. Geographic location data can be utilized to monitor user movements, while the exposure of medical and financial information may result in discrimination and inequity in employment, insurance, and social interactions. When data is employed to manipulate public opinion or strategically position political advertisements, it can significantly impair the people’s decision-making capacity and disrupt the functioning of democratic processes. In a highly technical and professional data environment, laypersons frequently find themselves in a disadvantaged position due to information asymmetry, lacking both the requisite expertise and technological resources to address digital privacy issues. Despite the profound integration of network technology into daily life, facilitating convenience in social interaction, information acquisition, and service consumption, public knowledge of its inherent perils remains comparatively inadequate. The intricate technological aspects and the platform’s lack of transparency in data processing render it challenging for users to comprehend the numerous pathways that personal data traverses during collection, storage, analysis, and sharing. This deficiency in understanding hinders users from accurately recognizing potential privacy issues and diminishes their capacity to combat algorithmic decision-making, data misuse, or platform exploitation.
Shadow Data
(Technologies, 2024).
Shadow data is a system that may gather, retain, and analyze user data over several channels, even in the absence of user registration, thus creating an unauthorized data repository.
Social media networks can enhance their user profiles and information repositories using diverse data collection methods. Platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp commonly employ a system that permits users to upload personal address books for the purposes of contact identification and friend recommendations. This approach, while seemingly designed to enhance the social experience, ultimately obscures privacy boundaries. Even if an individual has not enrolled on these platforms, their phone number, name, or email address may still be indirectly acquired by others who upload address books, thereby integrating this information into the platform’s extensive database.
As users engage with websites, digital platforms, and other online services in their everyday routines, they inadvertently produce and leave a substantial array of digital traces, encompassing IP addresses, device specifications, cookies, browsing history, and search terms. Despite appearing inconsequential, these data bits can effectively illustrate individual behavioural trajectories, interest inclinations, and even psychological traits through algorithmic synthesis. Platforms and third-party data firms may utilize this information to construct user profiles, thereby effectively executing commercial activities, such as targeted advertising, content suggestions, or risk evaluations.
Incident involving the acquisition of data by Google Street View in 2010. Google dispatched Street View vehicles globally to take street imagery for mapping applications. Nonetheless, during the operation, the Wi-Fi scanning apparatus of these Street View vehicles inadvertently gathered unencrypted Wi-Fi network traffic data, encompassing emails, passwords, and additional personal information. Despite Google’s assertion that the behavior was “unintentional,” the incident revealed deficiencies in the company’s transparency about data collecting and ignited global privacy concerns. Numerous nations immediately initiated an enquiry into Google and requested the enhancement of privacy protection measures to avert the recurrence of similar instances. (BBC, 2013). Privacy violations frequently arise not solely from the user’s active conduct, but also from the acts of others or the platform’s default configurations. The user’s information is acquired and utilized for purposes without authorization, which is a grave matter that may have repercussions on the user’s safety and personal autonomy.
Building Digital Security: Safeguarding Personal Information
Increasing awareness of digital privacy is a crucial prerequisite for every Internet user to safeguard their rights and interests in the information society. When individuals comprehend the methods of data collection, utilization, and dissemination on the Internet, they will be better equipped to deliberately manage their digital footprints and implement proactive actions to mitigate the danger of privacy breaches. For instance, users may meticulously scrutinize permission requests during application installations, deny superfluous data access, and activate the Do Not Track feature or employ ad-blocking plugins while navigating the web to inhibit third-party trackers from gathering browsing history and interest preferences. Individuals can also learn how to identify prevalent network risks, including phishing emails, fraudulent links, and malware, thereby enhancing their risk identification and response skills in a dynamic and intricate network landscape.
Utilizing an anonymous browser or activating privacy protection settings is a principal method for individuals to significantly diminish online surveillance and data tracking during their routine Internet usage. Anonymous browsers can hide users’ IP addresses, block third-party cookies and trackers, and thus prevent websites or advertising companies from establishing user behaviour profiles or interest profiles. Simultaneously, deactivating automated synchronization and backup services constitutes a significant risk mitigation strategy. To ensure a seamless experience across devices, numerous applications and services will, by default, automatically synchronize user data to the cloud or back up to other devices, potentially encompassing privacy-sensitive information such as photographs, contacts, browsing history, chat history, and documents. Upon uploading this data without encryption or authorization, they may be exploited or disclosed by the platform or replicated across several servers and held for an extended duration. When users deliberately disable superfluous automated backup and synchronization features, it can mitigate the inadvertent dissemination of data across the network from the origin.
Individuals can opt to utilize a fictitious or temporary identity when enrolling for non-essential online services to mitigate the danger of personal information being gathered and misused, particularly when they are doubtful about the website’s security or the service’s reliability. Utilizing temporary email addresses, bogus usernames, birthdays, or phone numbers allows users to dissociate their true identities from the service, hence mitigating possible dangers associated with data breaches. For instance, when downloading files, testing software, or engaging in surveys, utilizing a throwaway email or alias might effectively accomplish the objective while also mitigating subsequent spam or advertising tracking. This strategy may not be applicable in all contexts, such as in financial services or platforms necessitating real-name registration. However, for some online activities devoid of legal liability or financial data, employing a virtual identity serves as a straightforward and effective means of data protection, thereby augmenting personal privacy autonomy in cyberspace.
Furthermore, governments and enterprises should advocate stricter privacy practices and guarantee the security and confidentiality of personal data by establishing more compulsory and transparent legislation. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enacted by the European Union establishes the “Right to be Forgotten,” permitting individuals to request the erasure of their personal data. (Team, I. G. P., 2020). The regulation mandates the responsibilities of data controllers and necessitates that all data processing activities adhere to stringent privacy protection standards, including data encryption and user-informed consent. Enterprises should also establish more complete processes and technical means to ensure the immediate and thorough execution of data deletion requests and provide users with transparent deletion progress and results report to enhance trust. Combining personal privacy protection with structured data governance will not only help to establish a more effective data protection mechanism but also fundamentally reduce the risk of privacy leakage.
Final Thoughts: Privacy Should Be a Fundamental Right, Not a Privilege
(SAS, K.,2023).
The ongoing advancement of digital technology, artificial intelligence, and big data is ushering us into a predominantly data-driven and platform-oriented civilization. The delineation of personal privacy is becoming ambiguous, leaving individuals frequently at a disadvantage when confronted with intricate algorithmic algorithms and highly centralized Internet platforms. The technological issues of “data residue” and “shadow archives,” along with the opacity and lack of accountability in platform administration, illustrate the systemic concerns confronting privacy protection in today’s digital landscape. While individuals can mitigate threats through personal strategies like anonymous browsing and data cleansing, the fundamental safeguarding of digital privacy necessitates the collaborative efforts of legal frameworks, technological advancements, and platform accountability. Privacy ought to be regarded as an inherent right of every citizen in the digital era, rather than a privilege.
References
Abrams, L. (2022). 5.4 million Twitter users’ stolen data leaked online – more shared privately. BleepingComputer. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/54-million-twitter-users-stolen-data-leaked-online-more-shared-privately/
Aguiar, L., Peukert, C., Schaefer, M., & Ullrich, H. (2022). Facebook Shadow Profiles. In Policy File. CESifo Group Munich.
BBC. (2013). Google faces Streetview Wi-Fi snooping action. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24047235
Guardian News and Media. (2010). Google admits collecting Wi-Fi data through Street View Cars. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-admits-storing-private-data
Pew Research Center. (1999). The Internet News Audience Goes Ordinary. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/4/legacy-pdf/72.pdf.
Rainie, L. (2018). Americans’ complicated feelings about social media in an era of privacy concerns. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/27/americans- complicated-feelings-about-socialmedia-in-an-era-of-privacy- concerns.
SAS, K. (2023). Data privacy is a right, not a privilege. https://klassroom.co/news/item/N0000LNONJDMH/data-privacy-is-a-right-not-a-privilege
Suzor, N. (2019). Lawless: The Secret Rules That Govern Our Digital Lives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Szewczyk, P., Sansurooah, K., & Williams, P. A. H. (2018). An Australian Longitudinal Study Into Remnant Data Recovered From Second-Hand Memory Cards. International Journal of Information Security and Privacy, 12(4), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJISP.2018100106
Team, I. G. P. (2020). EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – An Implementation and Compliance Guide (4th Edition) (Fourth edition). IT Governance Publishing.
Team, N. G. (2025). Data remanence: What is it and how to protect your information. https://nsysgroup.com/blog/data-remanence-causes-risks-and-solutions/
Technologies, S. (2024). What is Shadow Data?. Sangfor Technologies. https://www.sangfor.com/glossary/cloud-and-infrastructure/what-is-shadow-data
Uber. (2025). Understanding why drivers and delivery people can lose access to their accounts. https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/driver-app/deactivation-review/
Be the first to comment