Sidelights | The Onslaught of AI: Where Does the "Freedom Not to Be Digitized" Lead?

Moderator: Zhou Juz-han / Principal Land Administration Agent, Zhou Juzhan Joint Land Administration Agent Office

Speaker: Jackie Yang / Attorney-at-Law, Member of the Digital Rule of Law Working Group, Judicial Reform Foundation

The Boundaries of Digital Information: Do We Still Have a Choice?

With the rapid development of technology, digitization is no longer merely an optional upgrade to existing services; it has become part of the infrastructure on which society operates. While this transformation, driven by data and algorithms, brings unprecedented convenience and efficiency, it also raises a fundamental question: in a world where everything is encoded, quantified, and predicted, do individuals still possess the "freedom not to be digitized"? Can we choose not to have our information incorporated into systems, analyzed, or tracked?

The Erosion of Privacy: From the Pandemic to Routine Forced Digitization

In many contexts, the ability to choose whether to participate in digital systems has been weakened or has effectively disappeared. One of the clearest examples emerged during the public health crisis. To control transmission chains, many jurisdictions rapidly introduced real-name registration systems and electronic location tracking. From real-name registration at public venues to geolocation monitoring through mobile-phone signals, personal movement data were sometimes handled using methods ordinarily associated with serious criminal investigations.

Although these measures were justified in the name of the public interest, they vividly demonstrated the extensive tracking capabilities of digital infrastructure. Once data are collected, individuals have far less control over how those data may later be used.

In everyday life, this "choice without a real choice" often appears as the hidden cost of convenience. Using EasyCards, automatic credit-card top-ups, or commuter passes may improve efficiency, but it also leaves detailed behavioral and location records. Cash may remain technically available, yet it often comes with greater inconvenience and time costs, creating a kind of "hidden penalty" for those who choose to remain offline.

Our digital footprints are no longer occasional traces. They permeate nearly every aspect of daily life and can collectively form a detailed "digital profile" of each person. When this data layer becomes a prerequisite for participating in society, individuals may effectively lose the meaningful freedom to refuse digitization.

The "Iron Triangle" of the AI Era and Data Capitalism

Artificial intelligence (AI) is one of the major forces accelerating this trend. Modern AI development depends on three indispensable elements that form an "iron triangle":

Data: often described as a new form of fuel, data provide the material from which AI systems learn and are trained.

Algorithms: these provide the structures through which data are processed, patterns are identified, and predictions or generated outputs are produced.

Computing power: this is the hardware foundation that makes large-scale data processing and model training possible.

Within this architecture, browsing histories, purchasing habits, social interactions, and even conversations with generative AI systems can become inputs for further analysis and development. The demand for data can appear nearly limitless, encouraging the normalization of ever-expanding information collection.

Privacy itself can also become commodified. Some platforms adopt a "consent or pay" model, under which users who do not wish to be tracked must pay for an alternative service. Such arrangements risk creating a new form of "privacy class": people who can afford to pay may retain greater control over their data, while other users are effectively required to exchange personal information for access to low-cost or free services.

AI systems do not merely predict behavior; they increasingly shape the choices, information, and opportunities presented to individuals.

The Gap Between Law and Technology: Data Minimization and Meaningful Offline Alternatives

As data collection expands, individual control over personal information has become a central issue in law and ethics. One representative protection is the right to erasure. In principle, when the purpose for collecting personal data no longer exists, or when consent is validly withdrawn, the relevant data should be deleted where the applicable legal requirements are met.

In practice, however, data may be distributed across multiple servers and backups or incorporated into complex technical systems. In the context of AI, information may also have contributed to the training of a model in ways that cannot easily be reversed. As a result, even where a service allows users to delete an account, users may have difficulty verifying whether all associated data have truly been removed. Legal protections can therefore become difficult to enforce in practice.

Protecting the freedom not to be digitized cannot depend solely on ex post rights such as erasure. Two additional principles are especially important:

Data Minimization: service providers should collect only the data that are necessary for a specified purpose. Privacy safeguards should be incorporated into system design from the outset rather than added only after problems arise.

Meaningful Non-Digital Alternatives: when digital services become essential social infrastructure, governments and service providers should preserve viable non-digital options that do not punish people for choosing them

A meaningful alternative requires at least two qualities:

Equivalence: non-digital options should offer a level of accessibility and service quality reasonably comparable to their digital counterparts.

Practicality: workable offline alternatives should remain available for essential needs such as taxation, medical care, and social welfare.

Only by preserving such alternatives can society maintain a "last room" for people who are unwilling or unable to fully datafy their lives, thereby protecting individual autonomy and dignity.

The Trade-Off Between Convenience and Freedom

The advance of digitization is unlikely to be reversed, but its boundaries remain a matter of social choice. The "freedom not to be digitized" does not require society to reject technological progress. Rather, it asks whether, within an increasingly datafied infrastructure, individuals can still retain meaningful space to refuse tracking, profiling, and constant quantification.

Protecting this freedom requires coordinated efforts across law, technology, and public policy. Without such safeguards, algorithmic power may increasingly pull everyone into the logic of data capitalism.

The ultimate questions are therefore these: How much freedom are we willing to surrender in exchange for convenience? And can society collectively preserve that final right to choose?