The shifting boundaries of privacy in new media: Surveillance, rights and vulnerable groups

Öz

The rapid expansion of digital technologies has redefined the boundaries of privacy and triggered multidimensional debates on individual rights. This study critically explores the transformation of privacy within new media environments, the functioning of digital surveillance mechanisms, and their structural impacts on individuals. Surveillance capitalism, algorithmic control, and data-driven platform architectures pose threats to privacy not only at the technical level but also across ethical, cultural, and political dimensions. The unequal exposure of vulnerable populations, including children, women, older adults, persons with disabilities, and refugees, reveals that privacy extends beyond an individual entitlement to become a matter of social justice. The paper argues that safeguarding digital privacy is essential not only for personal autonomy but also for ensuring democratic equality, human subjectivity, and rights-based governance. In conclusion, sustaining privacy in the era of new media requires collective solutions grounded in digital literacy, inclusive policy frameworks, and user-centered principles of data governance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital privacy
• Individual rights
• New media
• Vulnerable groups

Yeni medyada mahremiyetin dönüşen sınırları: Gözetim, haklar ve kırılgan gruplar

Öz

Dijital teknolojilerin hızla yaygınlaşması, mahremiyet kavramının sınırlarını yeniden tanımlamış ve birey haklarını çok boyutlu biçimde tartışmaya açmıştır. Bu çalışma, yeni medya ortamlarında mahremiyetin dönüşümünü, dijital gözetim mekanizmalarının işleyişini ve bu süreçlerin bireyler üzerindeki yapısal etkilerini eleştirel bir perspektifle incelemektedir. Gözetim kapitalizmi, algoritmik denetim ve platform temelli veri toplama uygulamaları, bireyin mahremiyetini yalnızca teknik değil; aynı zamanda etik, kültürel ve politik düzeyde tehdit etmektedir. Özellikle çocuklar, kadınlar, yaşlılar, engelliler ve mülteciler gibi kırılgan grupların bu gözetim süreçlerinden orantısız şekilde etkilenmesi, mahremiyetin bireysel bir haktan öte, toplumsal adaletle ilişkili bir mesele olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, dijital mahremiyetin korunmasının sadece bireysel özerklik için değil; demokratik eşitlik, öznellik ve hak temelli yönetişim için de kritik bir rol oynadığını vurgulamaktadır. Sonuç olarak, yeni medya çağında mahremiyetin sürdürülebilirliği için dijital okuryazarlık, kapsayıcı politika tasarımları ve kullanıcı merkezli veri yönetimi ilkeleri doğrultusunda kolektif çözümlere ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Birey hakları
• Dijital mahremiyet
• Kırılgan gruplar
• Yeni medya

Kaynakça

1. Akbaş, A. (2024). Dijital panoptikon: Elektronik gözetimin toplumsal yansımaları. Sinop İlahiyat Dergisi. 1, 51–89. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sinopid/issue/88183/ 1565517
2. Albrecht, J. P. (2016). How the GDPR will change the World. European Data Protection Law Review, 2, 287–289. https://doi.org/10.21552/EDPL/2016/3/4
3. Andrejevic, M. (2007). ISpy: Surveillance and power in the interactive era. University Press of Kansas.
4. Andrejevic, M. (2009). Exploiting youtube: Contradictions of user-generated labor. In Snickars P., & Vonderau, P. (Ed.), The youtube reader (pp.406–423). National Library of Sweden.
5. Arık, B., & Arık, E. (2020). Facebook’un dönüşen mahremiyet yaklaşımı: “Gelecek mahremiyettir”. Intermedia International e-Journal, 7(13), 447–461. https://doi.org/10.21645/intermedia.2020.91
6. Baghai, K. (2012). Privacy as a human right: A sociological theory. Sage Publication.
7. Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance: A conversation. Cambridge Polity Press.
8. Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society, 11(6), 985–1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809336551

9. Benge, J. F., & Scullin, M. K. (2025). A meta-analysis of technology use and cognitive aging. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(7) 1405–1141. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02159-9
10. Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.
11. Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability and transparency (pp. 77–91), New York: PMLR.
12. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.
13. Çığ, E. Ç. (2016). Dijital çağda bakışın politikası: Panoptikon ve aleniyet ilkesi, Toplum ve Demokrasi Dergisi, 10(21), 91–113. http://www.toplumvedemokrasi.org.tr/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi
14. Ellis, K., & Goggin, G. (2015). Disability media participation: Opportunities, obstacles and politics. Media International Australia, 154(1), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X1515400111
15. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
16. Federal Trade Commission (2013). COPPA–Children’s online privacy protection act.https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/childrens-online-privacy-protection-act
17. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.
18. Gilliom, J., & Monahan, T. (2012). Supervision: An introduction to the surveillance society. University of Chicago Press.
19. Gray, C. M., Kou, Y., Battles, B., Hoggatt, J., & Toombs, A. L. (2018). The dark (patterns) side of UX design, In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–14), New York: ACM.
20. Gstrein, O. J., & Beaulieu, A. (2022). How to protect privacy in a datafied society? A presentation of multiple legal and conceptual approaches. Philosophy & Technology, 35(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00497-4
21. Hintz, A., & Milan, S. (2018). Through a glass, darkly: Everyday acts of authoritarianism in the liberal west. International Journal of Communication, 12, 3939–3959. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id = 3189398
22. Livingstone, S., & Third, A. (2017). Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda. New Media & Society, 19(5), 657–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686318
23. Lupton, D. (2014). Digital sociology. Routledge Press.
24. Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. Buckingham Open University Press.
25. Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. John Wiley & Sons Press.
26. Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543995
27. McGuigan, L., Sivan Sevilla, I., Parham, P., & Shvartzshnaider, Y. (2025). Private attributes: The meanings and mechanisms of “privacy preserving” adtech. New Media & Society, 27(5), 2703–2724. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231213267
28. McStay, A. (2018). Emotional AI: The rise of empathic media. Sage Publication.
29. Meier, Y., & Krämer, N. C. (2024). Differences in access to privacy information can partly explain digital inequalities in privacy literacy and self efficacy. Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(6), 1183–1198. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0144929X.2024.2349183
30. Milanovic, M. (2015). Human rights treaties and foreign surveillance: Privacy in the digital age, Harvard International Law Journal, 56(1), 81–142. https://www.ilsa.org/Jessup/Jessup16/Batch%202/MilanovicPrivacy.pdf
31. Minella, M. (2025). Epistemology of new media: The screen and the crisis of reality. ISAR Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(6), 29–31. https://isarpublisher.com/journal/isarjahss
32. Molnar, P. (2019). Technology on the margins: AI and global migration management from a human rights perspective. Cambridge International Law Journal, 8(2), 305–330. https://doi.org/10.4337/cilj.2019.02.07
33. Murray, D., & Fussey, P. (2019). Bulk surveillance in the digital age: Rethinking the human rights law approach to bulk monitoring of communications data. Israel Law Review, 52(1), 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223718000304
34. Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119–157. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol79/iss1/10/
35. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press. Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge Polity Press.
36. Poster, M. (1990). The mode of information: Poststructuralism and social context. University of Chicago Press.
37. Serdar, M. (2023). Transformation of the surveillance society from panopticon to omnipticon: The case of black mirror’s episode ‘nosedive’. OPUS Journal of Society Research, 20(53), 396–409. https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1253893
38. Solove, D. J. (2021). The myth of the privacy paradox. George Washington Law Review, 89(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3536265
39. Steinberg, S. B. (2016). Sharenting: Children's privacy in the age of social media. Emory Law Journal, 66(4), 839–864. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol66/ iss4/2/
40. Stewart, K., & Spurgeon, C. (2020). Researching media participation by listening to people with disability. Media, Culture & Society, 42(6), 969–986. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719890536
41. Taylor, L. (2017). What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and freedoms globally. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717736335
42. Turow, J. (2017). The aisles have eyes: How retailers track your shopping, strip your privacy, and define your power. Yale University Press.
43. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York Public Affairs.