Chapter 6: Privacy and the Government
Written by Nia Junod
In the unsettling narrative of “Joan is Awful,” the protagonist Joan finds herself trapped in 24/7 surveillance by Streamberry. Her life, every move, and every waking minute become the subject of a life television series produced by StreamBerry, exploiting advanced AI technology to broadcast her life without her knowingly consenting[1]. This violation of privacy raises profound legal and ethical questions, mirroring the complexities and shortcomings of contemporary privacy laws and the concept of consent in our digital era.
This episode resonates with real-world legal discussions and actions aimed at protecting individuals' privacy, as discussed in Chapter 6. For instance, the Carpenter v. United States case underscored the judicial system's acknowledgment of the importance of warrant-based searches[6], reflecting a legal precedent that starkly contrasts with the unwarranted surveillance Joan endures. Furthermore, legislative efforts like the National Do Not Call Registry, and the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act represent governmental attempts to address privacy invasions[6]. However, they fall short of covering the complexities of digital surveillance, which Joan and Salma Hyek suffer from[2].
Joan’s predicament sheds light on digital consent, where signing up for services often involves agreeing to extensive terms that are in small print and may unknowingly waive fundamental privacy rights. Her legal battle to regain control over her personal life and stop StreamBerry's invasive broadcasting showcases the horrors of existing privacy laws, which are ill-equipped to protect individuals against companies like Streamberry, who are there to exploit[5].
The saga of Joan is a poignant critique of the digital age’s privacy invasions that potentially foreshadow our future society, prompting a reevaluation of the legal frameworks governing consent, surveillance, and individual rights. It highlights the urgent need for updated legislation that can offer genuine protection against non-consensual digital surveillance. They have zero control over their own image; only Streamberry can [4]. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) are examples of laws designed to protect personal information in specific sectors[6]. Still, Joan’s case reveals a gap in comprehensive legal protections encompassing the digital realm’s unique challenges. She cannot sue or move forward to better her case [3]; she is entirely stuck and locked into the contract.
By weaving in Joan, which is awful with these laws and legal precedents, we’re called to reevaluate the balance between technological advancements and preserving privacy. Joan is Awful is a critical reminder of the necessity for a legal system that intertwines the up-and-coming digital world and protects individuals' rights.