- Information is an exploitable product, which has generated what some call surveillance capitalism.
- States are merging with IT systems and corporations
- Comparison of digital public services
While regimes designated as authoritarian: China, Russia and Iran are often cited as examples of digital totalitarianism - with systems like China's Social Credit System or Russia's SORM surveillance apparatus - the Western model operates differently. In liberal democracies, surveillance is imposed not by fear, but by convenience.
Surveillance Capitalism and the Illusion of Choice
Harvard academic Shoshana Zuboff coined the term surveillance capitalism to describe how companies like Google, Meta (Facebook) and Amazon benefit from the massive collection and analysis of personal data.
These platforms offer free services - email, search, social networks - in exchange for personal information, which is then sold to advertisers and often shared with governments.
When public institutions rely on these same platforms for citizen engagement, they normalize and institutionalize this data economy. A simple appointment to perform mandatory state procedures becomes cunning and maliciously a data point in a broader tracking architecture.
In addition, democratic governments themselves have developed extensive digital surveillance capabilities. Leaked documents from programs such as Pegasus spyware have revealed how commercialized anti-terrorism tools have been used to monitor journalists, opposition politicians and human rights defenders across Latin America, including in Argentina and Colombia.
A dual control system
The fusion of state bureaucracy and corporate data systems creates a dual system of control:
One that tracks and profiles people and then conditions access to rights. All this happens through invisible digital doors without any need for open oppression.
And when these doors are only accessible online, the right to life offline is quietly revoked. Consider the following comparison of approaches to digital public services from different nations of the planet:
| Country / region | Digital Requirement | Offline Alternative | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Germany | Digital Options Promoted | Yes - extensive network of local offices | Citizens can choose processes |
| Estonia | Fully digital government (electronic residence) | Minimum; digital by default | Criticized for excluding elderly and low-income people |
| Canada | Encouraged digital services | Yes - federal and provincial offices | Multi-channel approach with telephone, mail, in person |
| India | Biometric identification linked to services | Some exceptions, but often de facto mandatory | Supreme Court ruled against mandatory use in 2018 |
| Uruguay | Digital platforms available | Yes - strong public infrastructure | Emphasis on universal access and inclusion |
Estonia, often hailed as a digital pioneer, offers a cautionary story: despite its success, its "digital default" model has raised concerns about privacy, exclusion and dependence on a centralized data system.
Similarly, India's Aadhaar system, while increasing efficiency, led to documented cases of people being denied food rations or medical care due to biometric failures.
From modernization to technological coercion: a global pattern
