This article investigates how futures of privacy protection are made in Europe. The public consultation phase of the European Union’s data protection reform is analysed as a case of making the future by using the future, that is, influencing institutional change through anticipatory storylines. A qualitative analysis of consultation responses is conducted, and two discourse coalitions are identified. The industry coalition promotes market liberalisation to allow the digital future to emerge. The civil society coalition, in turn, argues for rescuing privacy with strict rules. The article suggests that plausibility in relation to the discursive and extra-discursive environment is crucial for the success of storylines. The second storyline was relatively successful because it was more plausible in light of the trend of legalism and the predominant future-oriented narrative of privacy in danger. The ‘anticipatory institutionalism’ approach opens novel perspectives concerning actors’ future-oriented projects in relation to historical processes.
AhvenharjuSMinkkinenMLalotF (2018) The five dimensions of futures consciousness. Futures104: 1–13.
2.
BaruhLPopescuM (2017) Big data analytics and the limits of privacy self-management. New Media & Society19(4): 579–596.
3.
BennettCJRaabCD (2006) The Governance of Privacy: Policy Instruments in Global Perspective. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
4.
BennettCJRaabCD (2018) Revisiting the governance of privacy: contemporary policy instruments in global perspective. Regulation and Governance. Epub ahead of print 16August. DOI: 10.1111/rego.12222.
5.
BignamiFKelemenRD (2017) Kagan’s atlantic crossing: adversarial legalism, eurolegalism, and cooperative legalism in European regulatory style. In: BurkeTFBarnesJ (eds) Varieties of Legal Order: The Politics of Adversarial and Bureaucratic Legalism. New York: Routledge. pp. 81–97.
6.
BlumeP (2014) The myths pertaining to the proposed general data protection regulation. International Data Privacy Law4(4): 269–273.
7.
CapocciaGKelemenRD (2007) The study of critical junctures: theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism. World Politics59(3): 341–369.
8.
CarstensenMB (2011) Paradigm man vs. The bricoleur: bricolage as an alternative vision of agency in ideational change. European Political Science Review3: 147–167.
9.
CleggS (2017) Ideal type. In: RitzerG (ed.) The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
10.
CohenJE (2013) What privacy is for. Harvard Law Review126(7): 1904–1933.
11.
CollS (2014) Power, knowledge, and the subjects of privacy: understanding privacy as the ally of surveillance. Information, Communication & Society17(10): 1250–1263.
12.
Computer Law & Security Review (2013) Data protection in Europe – academics are taking a position. Computer Law & Security Review29(2): 180–184.
13.
CouldryNYuJ (2018) Deconstructing datafication’s brave new world. New Media & Society20: 4473–4491.
14.
De HertPPapakonstantinouV (2012) The proposed data protection regulation replacing directive 95/46/EC: a sound system for the protection of individuals. Computer Law & Security Review28(2): 130–142.
15.
De HertPPapakonstantinouV (2016) The new general data protection regulation: still a sound system for the protection of individuals?Computer Law & Security Review32(2): 179–194.
16.
Den BestenJWArtsBVerkooijenP (2014) The evolution of REDD+: an analysis of discursive-institutional dynamics. Environmental Science & Policy35: 40–48.
17.
DinevT (2014) Why would we care about privacy?European Journal of Information Systems23(2): 97–102.
FloridiL (2016) On human dignity as a foundation for the right to privacy. Philosophy & Technology29(4): 307–312.
20.
González FusterG (2014) The Emergence of Personal Data Protection as a Fundamental Right of the EU (Law, Governance and Technology Series). New York: Springer.
21.
GreenleafG (2013) Data protection in a globalised network. In: BrownI (ed.) Research Handbook on Governance of the Internet. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 221–259.
22.
HajerMA (1997) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon.
23.
HallPATaylorRCR (1996) Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies44(5): 936–957.
24.
HookerB (2016) Rule consequentialism. In: ZaltaEN (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 ed). Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
25.
JohnNAPetersB (2017) Why privacy keeps dying: the trouble with talk about the end of privacy. Information, Communication & Society20(2): 284–298.
26.
KelemenRD (2011) Eurolegalism: The Transformation of Law and Regulation in the European Union. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27.
KutayA (2015) Limits of participatory democracy in European governance. European Law Journal21: 803–818.
28.
LavelleKC (2011) Multilateral cooperation and congress: the legislative process of securing funding for the World Bank. International Studies Quarterly55(1): 199–222.
29.
LeifeldPHaunssS (2011) Political discourse networks and the conflict over software patents in Europe. European Journal of Political Research51(3): 382–409.
30.
MacenaiteM (2017) From universal towards child-specific protection of the right to privacy online: dilemmas in the EU general data protection regulation. New Media & Society19(5): 765–779.
31.
MahoneyJThelenK (2009) A theory of gradual institutional change. In: MahoneyJThelenK (eds) Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–37.
32.
ManteleroA (2016) Personal data for decisional purposes in the age of analytics: from an individual to a collective dimension of data protection. Computer Law & Security Review32(2): 238–255.
33.
MarxsenC (2015) Open stakeholder consultations at the European level – voice of the citizens?European Law Journal21(2): 257–280.
34.
MillerR (2011) Being without existing: the futures community at a turning point? A comment on Jay Ogilvy’s ‘facing the fold’. Foresight13(4): 24–34.
35.
MischeA (2009) Projects and possibilities: researching futures in action. Sociological Forum24(3): 694–704.
36.
MittelstadtBDFloridiL (2016) The ethics of big data: current and foreseeable issues in biomedical contexts. Science and Engineering Ethics22(2): 303–341.
37.
NissenbaumHF (2010) Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books.
38.
NissenbaumHF (2017) Deregulating collection: must privacy give way to use regulation? (SSRN Scholarly Paper no. ID 3092282). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3092282
39.
PedersenDM (1997) Psychological functions of privacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology17(2): 147–156.
40.
RaabCKoopsB-J (2009) Privacy actors, performances and the future of privacy protection. In: GutwirthSPoulletYHertPet al. (eds) Reinventing Data Protection?Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 207–221.
ReganPM (2002) Privacy as a common good in the digital world. Information, Communication & Society5(3): 382–405.
43.
RhoenM (2017) Rear view mirror, crystal ball: predictions for the future of data protection law based on the history of environmental protection law. Computer Law & Security Review33(5): 603–617.
44.
RichardsNM (2015a) Four privacy myths. In: SaratA (ed.) A World Without Privacy: What Law Can and Should Do?New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–82.
45.
RichardsNM (2015b) Intellectual Privacy: Rethinking Civil Liberties in the Digital Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
RotterJB (1990) Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. American Psychologist45(4): 489–493.
47.
RuckensteinMSchüllND (2017) The datafication of health. Annual Review of Anthropology46(1): 261–278.
48.
SchmidtVA (2008) Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science11(1): 303–326.
49.
SelinC (2006) Time matters: temporal harmony and dissonance in nanotechnology networks. Time & Society15(1): 121–139.
50.
SoloveDJ (2008) Understanding Privacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
TanseyO (2007) Process tracing and elite interviewing: a case for non-probability sampling. PS: Political Science & Politics40(4): 765–772.
52.
ThelenK (2003) How institutions evolve: insights from comparative historical analysis. In: MahoneyJRueschemeyerD (eds) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 208–241.
53.
Van der HeijdenJ (2011) Institutional layering: a review of the use of the concept. Politics31(1): 9–18.
54.
Van der HelmR (2006) Towards a clarification of probability, possibility and plausibility: how semantics could help futures practice to improve. Foresight8(3): 17–27.
55.
Van der SlootB (2014) Do data protection rules protect the individual and should they? An assessment of the proposed general data protection regulation. International Data Privacy Law4(4): 307–325.
56.
Van DijkNGellertRRommetveitK (2016) A risk to a right? Beyond data protection risk assessments. Computer Law & Security Review32(2): 286–306.
