Dijital Devlet, Veri Güvenliği ve Kamusal Etik: Küresel Perspektiften Mahremiyet Tartışmaları

Abstract

Son çeyrek asırda hızla dijitalleşen dünyada devletlerin, vatandaşlarıyla kurduğu ilişki şekli köklü bir biçimde değişime uğramıştır. E-Devlet gibi dijital kamu hizmet platformları, kamu hizmetlerinin vatandaşlara ulaştırılmasını hızlandırırken bireylerin kişisel verileri, devletin denetimi ve tasarrufu altına giren stratejik birer kaynağa dönüşmektedir. Bu durum; mahremiyet, veri güvenliği ve kamusal etik kavramları arasındaki sınırların yeniden tanımlanması ihtiyacını doğurmuştur. Avrupa Birliği, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Hindistan ve Çin gibi gelişmiş uluslararası organizasyon ve ülkeler, birbirinden farklı dijital devlet modellemelerini ortaya koyarak verilerin korunması noktasında önemli farklılıklar göstermektedirler. Bu çalışmada, söz konusu modeller karşılaştırmalı bir yöntem ile incelenerek dijital kamu hizmetleri platformlarının etik temelleri, mahremiyet politikaları ve gözetim rejimleri analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma, gözetim toplumu ve gözetim kapitalizmi gibi kuramsal altyapılar eşliğinde zenginleştirilmiş ve bireyin dijital çağda sahip olduğu kırılgan ve hassas konumu ele alınmıştır. Veri yönetimi ile kamu yararı arasındaki etik temelli tartışmalar sorgulanarak dijital devlet ekosisteminin güven inşa eden, hakları esas alan ve topluma hesap verebilen bir yapıda olması için çözüm önerileri sunulmaktadır.

Keywords

• Dijital Devlet
• Mahremiyet
• Veri Güvenliği
• Etik
• Gözetim Kapitalizmi

Digital Government, Data Security and Public Ethics: Privacy Debates from a Global Perspective

Abstract

In the rapidly digitalizing world of the last quarter century, the nature of the relationship between states and their citizens has undergone a profound transformation. Digital public service platforms such as e-Government have accelerated the delivery of public services to citizens, while individuals’ personal data have turned into strategic resources under the control and discretion of the state. This development has necessitated a redefinition of the boundaries between privacy, data security, and public ethics. Advanced international organizations and countries such as the European Union, the United States, India, and China have presented distinct models of digital governance, exhibiting significant differences in their approaches to data protection. This study employs a comparative method to examine these models and analyzes the ethical foundations, privacy policies, and surveillance regimes of digital public service platforms. Enriched by theoretical frameworks such as surveillance society and surveillance capitalism, the study addresses the fragile and sensitive position of the individual in the digital age. Ethical debates surrounding data management and the public good are explored, and solutions are proposed to ensure that the digital state ecosystem operates in a manner that builds trust, upholds rights, and remains accountable to society.

Keywords

• Digital State
• Privacy
• Data Security
• Ethics
• Surveillance Capitalism

References

1. Banerjee, S. (2015). Biometric Identity in India: Aadhaar and the Ethics of Inclusion. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(49), 127–134.
2. Bennett, C. J., & Lyon, D. (2008). Playing the identity card: Surveillance, security and identification in global perspective. Routledge.
3. Calo, R. (2013). Digital Market Manipulation. George Washington Law Review, 82(4), 995–1051.
4. Chan, J. M. (2020). Authoritarian Surveillance and Digital Control: The Case of China's Social Credit System. Journal of Contemporary China, 29(124), 1065–1092.
5. Citron, D. K., & Pasquale, F. (2014). The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review, 89(1), 1–33.
6. Creemers, R. (2017). China’s Social Credit System: An Evolving Practice of Control. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3175792
7. Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the Societies of Control. October, 59, 3–7.
8. Dignum, V. (2019). Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to develop and use AI in a responsible way. Springer Nature.

9. Dourish, P., & Mainwaring, S. D. (2012). Ubicomp's Colonial Impulse. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 1–10). ACM.
10. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Orijinal eser 1975'te yayımlandı).
11. Fuchs, C. (2017). Social media: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
12. Greenleaf, G. (2018). Global Data Privacy Laws 2017: 120 National Data Privacy Laws, Including Indonesia and Turkey. Privacy Laws & Business International Report, 145, 10–13.
13. Hintz, A., Dencik, L., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2019). Digital citizenship in a datafied society. Polity Press.
14. Kak, A. (2017). Regulating informational monopolies: A comparative look at the Aadhaar project. The Yale Journal on Regulation Bulletin, 35, 1–3.
15. Kloza, D., & O’Neill, M. (2018, 14 Ekim). GDPR as a starting point: The role of data protection in a democratic digital society. Brussels Privacy Hub Policy Briefs.
16. König, P. D., & Schütz, F. (2020, 8 Ocak). Ethics and Privacy in Digital Government: Lessons from the EU. Digital Society Reports.
17. Kuner, C. (2020). Reality and Illusion in EU Data Transfer Regulation Post Schrems II. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 27(6), 935–938. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X20981422
18. Liang, F., Das, V., Kostyuk, N., & Hussain, M. M. (2018). Constructing a Data-Driven Society: China’s Social Credit System as a State Surveillance Infrastructure. Policy & Internet, 10(4), 415–453.
19. Mantelero, A. (2014). The future of consumer data protection in the E.U.: Re-thinking the “notice and consent” paradigm in the new era of predictive analytics. Computer Law & Security Review, 30(6), 643–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2014.09.006
20. Morozov, E. (2020, 15 Mart). The Pandemic is a Trojan Horse for Digital Surveillance. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15
21. Morozov, E. (2020, 15 Mart). Digital governance in the age of surveillance. The New Republic.
22. OECD. (2021). OECD Digital Government Index: 2019 Results. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/4de9f5bb-en
23. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
24. Privacy International. (2018, 20 Kasım). Aadhaar: World’s Largest Biometric ID Programme Breaches Rights. Retrieved from https://privacyinternational.org
25. Rao, M., & Nair, P. (2019, 10 Aralık). Aadhaar: Digital Identity and the Global Biometric Turn. In The Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies (pp. 321–332). Routledge.
26. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
27. Resecurity. (2023, 15 Ocak). India’s Aadhaar System and the Rise of Biometric Data Breaches. Retrieved from https://www.resecurity.com
28. Şendal, A. (2025). Dijital Devlet ve Gözetim Rejimi: Çin Örneği Üzerinden Bir İnceleme. Uluslararası Dijital Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 45–67.
29. Solove, D. J. (2006). A Taxonomy of Privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(3), 477–564.
30. Solove, D. J., & Schwartz, P. M. (2020). Information Privacy Law (6th ed.). Wolters Kluwer, pp. 210–250.
31. Supreme Court Observer. (2018). Aadhaar Verdict Summary. Retrieved from https://www.scobserver.in
32. Taylor, L., Floridi, L., & Van der Sloot, B. (Eds.). (2017). Group Privacy: New Challenges of Data Technologies. Springer.
33. Times of India. (2025, 05 Şubat). Aadhaar Failures Deny Rations to Thousands: Report. Retrieved from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
34. UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India). (2018, 12 Mart). Aadhaar Dashboard – Statistics. Retrieved from https://uidai.gov.in
35. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Transparent, explainable, and accountable AI for robotics. Science Robotics, 2(6). https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aan6080
36. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2017). Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 842–849.
37. World Economic Forum. (2020). Responsible Limits on Facial Recognition: Use Case: Law Enforcement Investigations. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
38. Yeung, K. (2018). Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), 505–523.
39. Yılmaz, M. (2020). Türkiye’de Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Hukuku: Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirme. İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası, 78(1), 45–68.
40. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs.