Cyberpunk, the Postglobal and the Posthuman

Personal Privacy in the Digital Age

One of the defining features of cyberpunk fiction is the breakdown of boundaries between humans and machines, nations and corporations, and especially between public and private life. What once felt like a dystopian exaggeration is increasingly becoming reality. Over the past five years, the boundary between personal privacy and corporate/governmental surveillance has shifted dramatically. The line separating what belongs to the individual and what can be collected, analyzed, and sold has grown thinner than ever before. A clear contemporary example of collapsing privacy boundaries is emerging in Edmonton, where police have launched a pilot program using body cameras equipped with AI to recognize faces from a “high-risk” watch list in real time. What was once seen as intrusive or ethically untenable—the use of facial recognition on wearable devices—has now moved into operational testing in a major Canadian city, prompting debate from privacy advocates and experts about the societal implications of such pervasive surveillance.

Expanding Data Collection

Today’s apps and platforms gather far more than basic profile information. Social media companies track users’ locations, browsing habits, interactions with AI tools, and even behavioral patterns across different websites. For example, updates to privacy policies from major platforms like TikTok and Meta now allow broader data harvesting, often as a condition for continued use. Many users unknowingly exchange massive amounts of personal information simply to stay connected.

## The Rise of Biometric Surveillance Facial recognition technology has moved from science fiction into everyday life. Law enforcement agencies increasingly use AI-powered systems to scan crowds, identify individuals, and track movements in real time. While these tools are promoted as improving public safety, they blur the boundary between public presence and constant monitoring. People can now be identified and recorded without their knowledge or consent.

## Uneven Legal Protections Some governments have attempted to respond with new privacy laws, such as the European Union’s AI regulations and stricter data protection frameworks in countries like India. These laws aim to limit how companies collect and use personal information. However, regulations remain fragmented and often struggle to keep pace with rapidly advancing technologies. This leaves significant gaps where corporations can continue exploiting personal data.

What’s Driving This Shift?

Technology

Advances in AI and big data analytics make it incredibly easy to process enormous amounts of personal information. Facial recognition, predictive algorithms, and personalized advertising rely on constant surveillance to function. ## Economics Personal data is now one of the most valuable resources in the digital economy. Companies profit from targeted advertising, AI training, and personalized services built entirely on user information. Privacy has effectively become a currency.

Who Benefits—and Who Pays the Price?

Beneficiaries

• Tech corporations that profit from user data

• Governments that gain expanded surveillance capabilities

Those Impacted

• Everyday individuals losing control over personal information
• Marginalized communities disproportionately targeted by surveillance technologies
• People wrongfully identified by biased AI systems

Associated Press. (2024). AI-powered police body cameras, once taboo, get tested on Canadian city’s “watch list” of faces. AP News.1[https://apnews.com/article/21f319ce806a0023f855eb69d928d31e

Dear Sir, Madam, or Algorithm,

I assume you are reading this. Not because I have done anything remarkable, but because in a world shaped by digital systems, observation has become routine rather than something exceptional.

Five years ago, I still thought of privacy as something I possessed, imperfectly, maybe, but meaningfully. I assumed that my movements, conversations, and online habits were largely my own unless I chose to share them. That assumption has quietly worn away. Not through a single policy change or technological breakthrough, but through countless small decisions like agreeing to terms of service, enabling location access, and storing personal information in the cloud.

There was no clear moment when the boundary disappeared. It simply stopped being visible.

What has shifted most in recent years is not the existence of surveillance, but its structure. Governments increasingly rely on private companies to collect and organize personal data and then access it through legal requests or market transactions. According to reporting by Proton, authorities worldwide, particularly in the United States of course, have dramatically increased their requests for user data from major technology firms, often with limited transparency and oversight (Koch, 2025). In this arrangement, corporate data collection and state surveillance are no longer meaningfully separate.

This shift reflects a broader normalization of data as a form of currency. Individuals exchange personal information for convenience, connectivity, and access to digital services. Companies monetize that data. Governments acquire it. Each step is justified as efficient, legal, or necessary. However, when taken together, they blur the line between consent and compliance.

The American Civil Liberties Union has documented how U.S. agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security have purchased location data from brokers rather than obtaining warrants, effectively bypassing constitutional safeguards (Venkatesh & Yu, 2026). While the proponents argue this practice operates within existing legal frameworks, it raises important questions about whether privacy protections remain meaningful when personal data is treated as a commodity.

Similar patterns appear beyond the United States. In Jordan, authorities reportedly used phone-extraction tools to access activists’ devices, targeting political dissent through technological means (Kirchgaessner, 2026). These cases highlight how surveillance technologies are easily transferred across borders and contexts, and how they often impact those already vulnerable to state power.

Even technical protections such as encryption, which are framed as firm barriers to access, prove now to be conditional. In early 2026, Microsoft confirmed that it provided encryption keys to U.S. authorities when legally compelled to do so, prompting concern among privacy advocates about precedent and potential misuse (O’Brien, 2026). Security, it seems, depends less on technological limits than on institutional trust.

To be clear, surveillance systems are frequently defended on grounds of public safety, efficiency, and national security. These concerns deserve serious consideration. Yet the collective effect of extensive data collection and expanded access warrants equally serious scrutiny. Who benefits from this visibility? Who bears the risks? And how should societies balance collective security with individual autonomy?

I do not offer simple answers. What I do offer is a sense that we have crossed a boundary without fully acknowledging it. Privacy has now been redefined and negotiated continuously in ways that are often invisible to the people most affected. It is well on its way to completely vanishing.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Warm regards,

One of your many data points

References: Kirchgaessner, S. (2026, January 22). Jordan used Israeli firm’s phone-cracking tool to surveil pro-Gaza activists, report finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/22/jordan-israeli-spyware-gaza-activists

Koch, R. (2025, February 27). Authorities worldwide can see more than ever, with Big Tech as their eyes. Proton. https://proton.me/blog/big-tech-data-requests-surge

O’Brien, T. (2026, January 24). Microsoft handed the government encryption keys for customer data. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/news/867244/microsoft-bitlocker-privacy-fbi

Venkatesh, A., & Yu, L. (2026, January 12). DHS is circumventing Constitution by buying data it would normally need a warrant to access. American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/dhs-is-circumventing-constitution-by-buying-data-it-would-normally-need-a-warrant-to-access

In a cyberpunk future the highly technological future leaves little room for personal privacy. With the ability for memories to be downloaded onto a hard drive, conversations to be recorded at all times, and surveillance systems wherever you turn, what does privacy even truly mean? Sadly, we are not as far away from this future as it may seem as recording technology advances every day. What started out as a way to preserve memories and document history, has morphed into a way to surveille and invade the privacy of strangers on the street. One of the most significant boundary collapses in the last five years has nothing to do with changes in climate or the breaking (and building) of literal borders, but rather entirely relates to the erase of privacy in the digital and technological age.

What Changed?

In previous years, taking a photograph was something personal and even private. By taking a picture, you were inviting others in to indulge in a day in your life. A hot coffee from your local coffee shop, you blowing out the candles to your fifth birthday cake, or even a picture of you and your friends from prom was taken for you personally to share with others if you saw fit. People were able to access a portion of your life with your consent, and it was clear that taking pictures of-or recording others without their consent was unethical and, honestly, creepy. When social media became more popular however, and websites like WorldStar encouraged people to record moments between stranger these boundaries began to bend. Enraptured by the dopamine rush of likes, views, and comments, a race to be the biggest name, have the funniest video, and/or be the most known began. No longer was your day-to-day life something kept between you and a group of friends, now moments of your life were able to be recorded and posted without your knowing or consent. The lines of privacy blurred even more when streaming became popularized. At this point it was not only normal to be constantly under surveillance but almost expected as streamers conducted twenty-four hour live-streams giving fans constant access to their daily happenings. One of the most recent, and in my opinion most stark boundary shifts came in the form of the Ray Bans Meta Glasses. These glasses allow for its wearer to record from their eye view, most of the time without the knowledge of those around them. It has also been found that many non-users of said glasses fear privacy breaches from those who own the glasses while glasses owners feel as though they get a social boost from the technological advancement (Anzolin & Nostro 2025).

Another occurrence that aided in this shift is the rise of police brutality. During instances where no one else was around, footage was the only thing that many could use to prove their innocence. Not only did the rise in police brutality aid in a subsequential rise in citizen’s journalism, but it made having a phone or recording device on you at all times almost essential. Moments that would have gone unknown and undiscussed were now available on platforms for people around the world to see. Eventually, recordings from people on the street became people’s main source of news when media stations were not reporting on what was truly happening (Yeh 2020). Because of this, people became prepared to record a strangers’ possible worst moment at the drop of a hat whether it was for safety or entertainment.

The Integration

Thus far, we understand that cyberpunk societies are marked by highly advanced technologies and weak governments. The advance in technology that has contributed to the erasure of privacy in the modern day is obvious, what I instead want to discuss is how weak government further pushes us towards a cyberpunk future. As with the last example about the rise in police brutality, the immense racism that our government was built upon and has yet to make up for pushed citizens to feel as though a camera phone was a tool of protection. With the threat of aggressions from police officers becoming increasingly more imminent for marginalized communities, technology can feel like the only thing that may be able to save your life. This is not only true for those of marginalized identities anymore as we see those who do not proudly support the government at risk for experiencing these aggressions as well. Lack of government protection, or reprimand for the perpetrators of harm actively pushes us closer to the cyberpunk future we deem unrealistic.

No AI Technology was used to create this blog post.

References

Anzolin, E., & Nostro, G. L. (2025, December 9). Focus: Ray-Ban Meta glasses take off but face privacy and competition test. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/ray-ban-meta-glasses-take-off-face-privacy-competition-test-2025-12-09/

Yeh, J. (2020, August 5). “I’m out here—I am the news for our people.” How protesters across the country are keeping informed. Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/protest-activist-news-social-media.php