Demarcation of the public and private in the interaction of the state and citizens on digital network platforms

Digital network platforms are built on sociotechnical interaction between actors and actors. The creation and development of new public services based on digital platforms inevitably leads to the transformation of the relationship between the state and citizens. The attractiveness of state digital platforms for citizens increases when resolving the contradiction between the possibilities of new forms of social interaction and the threat of misuse of personal data, the risk of harm or persecution.

The article presents the results of the analysis of the boundaries of the public and private in the interaction of the state with citizens on digital network platforms. The research method is a comparative analysis, which is based on the dichotomy of public and private, reflected in the concept of private and public X. Arendt, concepts of the public sphere J. Habermas, regulatory and legal concepts of privacy by R. Gavison. The empirical base was made up of a sociological study conducted to obtain information about the boundaries of privacy and publicity of personal data in the digital network space (n = 1 000 among the population over 18 years old living in metropolitan megacities and median regions by the level of informatization, 2020) and the results of Kaspersky Lab surveys conducted in 2019–2020.

The conducted research allows us to assert that almost 2/3 of citizens have faced the misuse of confidential information on the Internet. Most of the respondents are aware that websites, social networks and search engines can collect data for web analytics. At the same time, citizens consider it possible to transfer personal data to the authorities in a generalized form for making managerial decisions. Half of the surveyed population does not object to the implementation of digital control over the actions and movements of citizens. Thus, despite the existing negative experience, it is unlikely that there will be any obvious resistance to organizing the collection of personal information on digital network platforms.

1. Arendt H. (2000), Vita Activa oder Vom tätigen Leben [Vita Activa, or About active life], translated from German and English by V.V. Bibikhin, Aleteya, St. Petersburg, Russia. (In Russian).

2. Gavison R. (1980), “Privacy and the limits of law”, The Yale Law Journal, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 421–471. https://doi.org/10.2307/795891

3. Gavison R. (1992), “Feminism and the public-private distinction”, Stanford Law Review, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 1–45.

4. Habermas J. (2017), The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society, translated from German by V.V. Ivanov, Ves` Mir, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).

5. Kargapolova E.V., Kargapolov S.V., Davydova Yu.A. and Dulina N.V. (2020), “Information competences of young people within digitalization of society”, Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 193–210. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15838/ esc.2020.3.69.13

6. Kymlicka W. (2001), Contemporary political philosophy: an introduction, 2nd ed, Oxford University Press, New York, USA.

7. Likhtin A.A. (2021), “Transformation of public administration in the digital era”, Administrative Consulting, nо. 4, pp. 18–26. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2021-4-18-26

8. Moazed A. and Johnson N. (2019), Platform: practical application of a revolutionary business model, translated from English by A. Solomina, Al`pina Publisher, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).

9. Prokazina N.V. (2020), Digital literacy of the population as a resource for the development of the information society, Information Development of Russia: State, Trends and Prospects: Proceedings of the X All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference. Оrel, December 6, 2020, edited by Yu.V. Kaira, Central Russian Institute of Management – a branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Orel, Russia, pp. 77–83. (In Russian).

10. Salikov A. (2018), “Hannah Arendt, Jurgen Habermas, and rethinking the public sphere in the age of social Media”, Russian Sociological Review, vol. 17, no. 4, p. 88–102. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2018-4-88-102

11. Smorgunov L.V. (2019), “Participatory governability: platforms and collaboration”, Vlast’, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 9–19. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31171/vlast.v27i5.6712

12. Shkudunova Yu.V. (2007), “Conceptual framework of “publicity” and “privacy”, Herald of Omsk University, no. 4, pp. 65–68. (In Russian).

13. Styrin E.M. and Dmitrieva N.E. (2021), State Digital Platforms: Key Features and Main Development Scenarios: Report to the XXII April International Scientific Conference on Problems of Economic and Social Development. Moscow, April 13–30, 2021, Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).

14. Vasilenko V.I., Vasilenko L.A., Rukhtin M.V. et al. (2010), Transformation processes in the system of access to state secret of Russia: monograph, edited by of A.A. Prokhozhev, Prospekt, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).

15. Vasilenko L.A. (2021), Public policy in digital society, KnE Social Sciences: XXIII International Conference Culture, Personality, Society in the Conditions of Digitalization: Methodology and Experience of Empirical Research Conference, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 585–593. https://doi.org/10.18502/ kss.v5i2.8404

16. Zotov V.V., Zakharov V.M. and Sapryka V.M. (2021), “Digitalization of public administration: electronic democracy vs electronic government”, NOMOTHETIKA: Philosophy. Sociology. Law, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 250–262. (In Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.52575/2712-746X-2021-46-2-250-262