You walk into a government agency to complete what should be a routine task, renewing your ID, filing your taxes, or accessing a public service. Within minutes, you’re asked to provide not just your full legal name and address, but also your photo, digital fingerprints, iris scan, biometric signature, and consent for all of it to be stored in a centralized database.

You’re not given a real choice. Declining means you can’t access the service, submit your documents, or fulfill your legal obligations as a citizen. And so, you comply—not because you’re comfortable, but because you have no other option.

This scenario is becoming increasingly common across jurisdictions worldwide. While public institutions justify the collection of such data in the name of national security, fraud prevention, or administrative efficiency, the reality is stark: we are surrendering an extraordinary amount of personal information to the state with limited transparency, minimal control, and virtually no room to opt out – or to remain in control of our – own data.

In this context, the principle of Privacy by Design (PbD) becomes more critical – and more challenging – than ever.

Originally conceived as a framework to embed privacy into the architecture of systems and processes, PbD has evolved from a forward-thinking concept into a foundational requirement for any data-driven organization. As businesses, institutions, and critical infrastructure sectors accelerate digital transformation, privacy must no longer be an afterthought – it must be a core design principle.

Yet, a growing and often overlooked tension arises when these same organizations are required to share user data with government agencies. Whether for national security, law enforcement, or regulatory compliance, the pressure to disclose personal or sensitive information often stands in direct conflict with the ideals of transparency, user autonomy, and ethical data stewardship.

This article explores the complex intersection of Privacy by Design, cybersecurity, and public-sector data requests—highlighting the operational, ethical, and risk management challenges that emerge when privacy obligations collide with government demands for access.

The Challenge: Balancing Compliance with Data Protection

For private-sector entities, compliance with lawful government requests is not optional. However, the obligation to share data—especially in bulk or through automated access—poses significant risks:

• Data minimization vs. government appetite: PbD principles emphasize collecting only what is necessary. Yet many government programs require extensive datasets, undermining efforts to limit data exposure. And when personal data is collected, the process must be truly transparent—but transparency does not mean burying information in lengthy or overly complex privacy policies. It goes far beyond that. Institutions must provide clear, proactive notice and implement effective mechanisms that empower individuals—the rightful owners of their personal information—to access, understand, and manage their data.

This includes user-centric tools such as personal data dashboards, dynamic consent management platforms, and granular privacy settings that enable users to see what data is collected, how it is used, and with whom it is shared. Frameworks like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Canada’s proposed Bill C-27 (Digital Charter Implementation Act) recognize these principles and call for enhanced transparency, user control, and accountability. However, implementation often falls short—especially when public-sector data collection operates outside the boundaries of commercial privacy norms.

• Lack of transparency and accountability: Government requests may come with gag orders or classified status, making it difficult for organizations to inform users or conduct independent oversight.
• International conflicts and cross-border data transfers: Multinational companies may be caught between conflicting jurisdictional demands, such as between GDPR protections and national surveillance laws.

International frameworks like the Council of Europe’s Convention 108+ and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) set stringent standards for data protection, emphasizing transparency, user control, and accountability. Canada’s proposed Bill C-27 (Digital Charter Implementation Act) similarly aims to enhance transparency and user control over personal data.​

Real-world cases highlight the consequences of failing to adhere to these standards:​

• Uber’s GDPR Violation: In August 2024, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) fined Uber €290 million for transferring personal data of European taxi drivers to the United States without appropriate safeguards. The data included sensitive information such as account details, taxi licenses, location data, photos, payment details, identity documents, and, in some cases, criminal and medical data. Uber ceased the practice and plans to appeal the decision, arguing compliance during a period of regulatory uncertainty. (Sources: The Verge, Investopedia, Duch DPA)
• Clearview AI’s Unauthorized Data Collection: In September 2024, the Dutch DPA fined Clearview AI €30.5 million for creating an unauthorized database of biometric data scraped from social media, including images of Dutch citizens. Clearview failed to inform individuals about the use of their data and continued non-compliant practices during the investigation. The DPA ordered Clearview to cease the unlawful behavior, with additional penalties for non-compliance. (Sources: AP, Hunton) ​

These cases underscore the importance of not only establishing robust data protection policies but also ensuring their effective implementation and enforcement. Organizations must move beyond mere compliance and actively foster a culture of privacy that respects and upholds individuals’ rights.

Risk Implications for Organizations

The decision to share user data with government entities—regardless of legal justification – carries deep and often long-lasting consequences. These risks go beyond compliance, touching on cybersecurity, reputational harm, legal exposure, and ethical governance. Organizations must navigate these risks not only through regulatory alignment but also by adopting structured frameworks that embed privacy into operational and strategic decision-making.

Erosion of Public Trust

Users today are increasingly privacy aware. Unclear or opaque data-sharing practices with public authorities – particularly those involving biometric or sensitive data – can spark public backlash and erode trust. The Uber GDPR case is illustrative: when personal data was transferred across borders without adequate protection, the result was a €290 million fine and reputational damage. Trust lost through perceived overreach or secrecy is difficult to rebuild, even with legal compliance in place.

Expanded Cybersecurity Exposure

Channels established for data disclosure—such as secure APIs, encrypted file transfers, or government access portals—create new attack surfaces and dependencies. If not carefully assessed, these interfaces may expose critical data to unauthorized access or exploitation. The NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 emphasizes the need to strengthen governance and supply chain risk management, recognizing the interconnectedness of cybersecurity and data protection. The Framework recommends mapping data flows, conducting impact assessments, and embedding privacy into enterprise-wide risk decisions.

Legal and Financial Liabilities

Organizations that fail to uphold data protection obligations risk serious legal consequences under laws like the GDPR, Convention 108+, and Canada’s proposed Bill C-27. Tools such as ISO/IEC 27701:2019, which extends ISO 27001:2022 into privacy information management, and ISO/IEC 29100:2024, which provides a high-level privacy framework, help organizations define roles, lawful bases for processing, and safeguards for cross-border data transfers. The Clearview AI case, where unauthorized facial recognition data triggered fines across multiple jurisdictions, demonstrates how failures in governance and oversight can have global implications.

Internal Ethical Dilemmas and Organizational Tensions

Data sharing with public-sector entities – especially in contexts tied to surveillance, immigration, or national security – can lead to ethical conflicts within the organization. Employees, particularly in legal, compliance, and security roles, may feel that such practices conflict with the company’s values or promises made to users. ISO/IEC 29100:2024 outlines principles like purpose limitation, data subject participation, and non-discrimination, all of which help guide internal deliberations and uphold data ethics in practice. When these principles are sidelined, employee trust and retention can suffer.

Integrating Privacy into Corporate Governance

The shift from reactive compliance to proactive governance is being reinforced by emerging standards and updates:

• NIST CSF 2.0 places increased emphasis on organizational governance, integrating privacy considerations into broader cybersecurity strategy.
• The draft revision of the NIST Privacy Framework 2.0 aims to better align privacy, risk, and resilience.
• ISO 27701 and ISO 29100 provide operational blueprints for embedding privacy into the corporate fabric—from policy to practice.

By aligning with these frameworks, organizations can foster transparency, enable ethical data decision-making, and build long-term resilience—not only in response to regulatory demands, but also in service of their mission, values, and the people they serve.

Strategies for Risk Mitigation and Governance

To navigate the growing complexity of government data demands, evolving regulation, and heightened public scrutiny, organizations must move beyond reactive compliance. They must adopt a proactive, ethically grounded, and multi-layered approach to privacy risk governance – one that recognizes that privacy is not a privilege or a business feature; it is a fundamental human right.

Importantly, governments do not have a blank check to surveil populations, nor do technology companies have the moral or legal authority to monetize personal data unchecked or manipulate public discourse through algorithmic influence. This is not just a compliance challenge – it is a societal obligation.

Here are key strategies for organizations seeking to lead with accountability and purpose:

Embed Privacy Risk Assessments in Every Disclosure Decision

Data protection must extend beyond product development or incident response. Each request for data – particularly from government entities – should be evaluated through a formal, documented process that considers proportionality, legality, necessity, and risk to the individual. Frameworks such as ISO 27701 and the NIST Privacy Framework provide structured approaches to these assessments.

Strengthening Internal Governance and External Oversight

Effective data governance requires clear roles, documented procedures, and ethical oversight. Every government disclosure should involve a review process led by privacy officers, legal counsel, and, where appropriate, independent third-party auditors. The updated NIST CSF 2.0 emphasizes governance as a central pillar – an essential shift toward systemic accountability.

Invest in Privacy-Enhancing Technologies (PETs)

Tools such as data anonymization, differential privacy, and federated learning help limit personal data exposure while maintaining analytical utility. These technologies operationalize data minimization and purpose limitation, key principles found in GDPR, Convention 108+, and ISO 29100.

Enable Meaningful Transparency and Public Accountability

Organizations should publish regular transparency reports disclosing the nature and frequency of government data requests, within legal boundaries. Transparency is not just about policy documentation – it’s about showing the public what’s really happening with their data. As recognized by Convention 108+ and GDPR, data subjects have a right to know and a right to challenge.

Advocate for Stronger Standards and Democratic Dialogue

The security-privacy dichotomy is a false one. Security without privacy risks authoritarian control; privacy without security risks chaos. Industry leaders must work with regulators and civil society to shape legislation that balances national interests with civil liberties – promoting clearer boundaries, public accountability, and legal redress mechanisms.

In a world where both state and corporate actors increasingly extract, surveil, and monetize personal information, the stakes are too high to rely on outdated models of consent and control. Privacy must be designed, governed, and defended as a right – not offered as a feature. The path forward lies in principled governance, technological responsibility, and an unambiguous commitment to human dignity.

Conclusion: Designing With Ethics in Mind, Not Just Compliance

The call for data – by both governments and corporations – will only intensify as digital infrastructure becomes further entangled with national security, public health, law enforcement, and economic strategy. Yet amid this acceleration, one principle must remain non-negotiable: privacy is a fundamental human right, not a trade-off for convenience, profit, or control.

Public institutions may collect data under legal authority, and private companies may process it under commercial logic—but neither should be allowed to undermine the individual’s autonomy, legal protections, and right to informational self-determination. Surveillance should never become the cost of civic participation. And data extraction should never be the price of staying connected.

Today’s landscape is marked not only by government overreach, but by technology giants whose business models are built on the unchecked exploitation of personal data – fueling disinformation, behavioral manipulation, and deepening asymmetries of power. Social media platforms, driven by opaque algorithms and monetization imperatives, have turned user data into a high-risk commodity. This is not innovation – it is a distortion of the digital public sphere.

In this context, Privacy by Design must transcend technical implementation and become a foundational element of governance, ethics, and strategic leadership. It must inform:

• Policy and law, through enforceable rights-based frameworks.
• Organizational governance, where accountability is a live practice, not a formality.
• Technology design, where risk is mitigated at inception – not rationalized post-deployment.

Privacy is no longer merely a compliance exercise or security feature. It is a benchmark for democratic resilience, ethical innovation, and institutional legitimacy in the digital era.

Responsible data stewardship is not just good business – it is a critical responsibility. The question is no longer whether we can design for privacy, but whether we are prepared to realign our systems, strategies, and power structures to uphold it.

Until next time!