You’d think something called the General Data Protection Regulation might actually protect data. You’d be wrong. Along with its elder cousin, the ICCPR, GDPR was hailed as the Great Hope™, a beacon of digital dignity in a world run by surveillance capitalists. But instead of taming the beast, it handed it a clipboard and told it to tick some boxes.

The GDPR officially kicked in at the stroke of midnight on 25 May 2018, like some sort of data privacy Cinderella. It was meant to give users the sacred gift of choice, to say yes or no to having their personal lives vacuumed up, analysed, monetised, and passed around like cheap party favours. What we actually got was an avalanche of “consent” banners and passive-aggressive pop-ups saying: “Agree or get lost.”

On day one, the fine folks at noyb.eu (None Of Your Business, in case you missed the joke) filed complaints against Google, Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram for what they rightly called “forced consent”. Because let’s be honest, when “agreeing” is the only way to access the service, it’s not consent. It’s coercion, wrapped in legalese.

Meanwhile, in Politics…

The grown-ups in charge appear utterly out of their depth. They’re flailing in the face of six colossal issues:

  • the slow-motion car crash that is environmental destruction,
  • the digitisation of absolutely everything,
  • unaccountable algorithms pulling levers behind the curtain,
  • political discourse that makes Orwell look quaint,
  • a globalisation model that has run rather far ahead of any visible adult supervision,
  • and a steady erosion of the rule of law, dressed up as “reform”.

We want to breathe clean air and drink clean water, not microplastics. We want to use the internet without being stalked by ads for things we never mentioned aloud. We’d quite like artificial intelligence that isn’t making life-or-death decisions like some deranged sorting hat. We’d prefer politicians to tell the truth now and then, instead of spinning reality like DJ decks. And we’re really not loving the idea of buying clothes made by unpaid children in collapsing factories.

The trouble is, Europe’s current constitutions are about as helpful as a fax machine in a blackout.

Six rights that might actually help

A handful of campaigners have been drafting what the Charter of Fundamental Rights might say if it were brought up to date. The contents are worth a look, if only because they mark the gap between what current law covers and what people actually live through.

Article 1: Environment

The right to live in an environment that is healthy, protected, and preferably not on fire.

Article 2: Digital self-determination

The right to control one’s digital identity. No more profiling, no more manipulation. Ads that follow you around the internet could be classified as stalking.

Article 3: Artificial intelligence

The right to know what algorithms are doing to people. Algorithms could be transparent, accountable, and not treated like sorcery. Big decisions could involve a human being, preferably one who isn’t asleep at the wheel.

Article 4: Truth

The right to expect that people in power occasionally tell the truth. Lies could come with a health warning, like cigarettes.

Article 5: Globalisation

The right to buy things that weren’t made in violation of basic decency. No forced labour. No ecological ruin. No “fast fashion” that unravels in the wash.

Article 6: Fundamental rights lawsuits

The right to sue the trousers off institutions that systematically trample on rights. The European Courts could be open for business, and not just to lobbyists.

Whether or not any of this ends up in a treaty, it does mark the questions current law avoids: what counts as consent when refusing closes the door, what kind of accountability survives when decisions are made by software, and who is supposed to notice when none of the above is working.