Introduction
To protect individual information, privacy is an essential right the state should grant every person. Violating individual discretion tends to deprive one of their moral autonomy and dignity. Exposure of the candidates’ details, as evidenced in Prop 8, can influence their future decisions, influencing them to make choices they would not have made in everyday situations. The occurrence will ultimately limit their freedom to engage in causes that align with their beliefs.
The Side Effects of Prop 8
First, the public release of individual donors’ details results in unwarranted privacy invasion. Although the voting details were publicly made available per the state requirement, the presentation of the details using Google Maps made them more reachable to unauthorized audiences (Reidenberg, 2005). Such privacy invasion results in discomfort and insecurity among donors due to the public exposure of their sensitive details, most of which can lead to severe attacks.
In addition, lack of privacy on donors’ details can make them victims of discrimination or easy targets of harassment. In this case, the visual exposure of sponsors’ contribution amounts, addresses, and individual names opens them to discrimination and harassment from others with opposing views. Most Prop 8 supporters are more likely to face undesirable consequences or backlash due to their opinions (Pfiffner & Friemel, 2023). This will finally lead to threats and obstruction from getting involved in regular social activities. If not well-handled, such occurrences can result in low self-worth and reduced social interaction due to increased discrimination.
Failure to secure donors’ information can also lead to safety concerns as they become major target attacks for their affiliations. Subscribers, especially those involved in some of the most controversial issues like the one in question, tend to face serious security threats from those holding different beliefs (Decuypere et al., 2021). This creates a greater need to secure most of their sensitive details, such as addresses and names, from public access. In most cases, such donors face physical attacks from opponents, creating a greater need for security concerns.
The occurrence will also lead to transparency and trust issues among subscribers. The failure of the polling organization to maintain basic details of its donors will create doubt among voters about its ability to handle civic information and records. This will ultimately lead to trust issues in sharing and managing individual data (Pfiffner & Friemel, 2023). It is presumed that any electoral institution that fails to uphold security on voters’ private and sensitive details lacks credibility to conduct a transparent and fair election. The results from such institutions are said to be unreliable due to the compromised security measures.
Finally, exposing donors’ most sensitive details like addresses, the amount contributed, and their names will affect their autonomy of free speech. Suppose donors must be convinced of the institution’s ability to uphold the privacy of their funding and other free-will activities. In that case, they will likely refrain from airing their opinions or subscribing to the future causes they support (Decuypere et al., 2021). The distress of being publicly exposed and facing threatening outcomes can limit an individual willingness to participate in democratic activities they support.
Conclusion
The Prop 8 incidence denotes the existing risks and complexities related to the intersection of technology, civic records, and personal privacy. The happening underlines the need for responsible presentation and handling of public details, especially the most contentious and sensitive issues. Disclosure of the donors’ information has far-reaching outcomes that tend to interfere with individual privacy and an overall sense of trust, freedom, and security. Although the information might be publicly exposed according to the existing policies, the manner in which it is accessed and presented raises significant concerns.
References
Decuypere, M., Grimaldi, E., & Landri, P. (2021). Introduction: Critical studies of digital education platforms. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 1–16. Web.
Pfiffner, N., & Friemel, T. N. (2023). Leveraging Data Donations for Communication Research: Exploring Drivers Behind the Willingness to Donate. Communication Methods and Measures, 1-23. Web.
Reidenberg, J. R. (2005). Technology and Internet jurisdiction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153(6), 1951-1974. Web.