Is Blockchain the Guarantor of Our Confidentiality?

Surfshark sourced the entirety of its information from four transparency reports published by leading tech companies: Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft. Each request encompasses a range of accounts and may be partly or fully granted. Regardless, the demand for such data from law enforcement agencies is on the rise each year.

While the majority of requests are linked to criminal investigations, information may also be shared in the context of administrative cases. Predictably, U.S. authorities request data at double the rate of the entire European Union. Their joint requests make up over 60% of the total amount (6,626,040), a quarter of which were made in 2021.

On their end, the companies approve roughly 71% of government requests. Remarkably, Apple, which promotes itself as a stronghold of privacy, is at the forefront in terms of providing user data, granting around 82% of requests. Nevertheless, it is important to note that their overall number is relatively lower, with a mere 75,550 occurrences recorded throughout the year 2021.

Such a treatment towards users has long been a source of acrimony amongst many. Frequently, corporations face allegations of excessive data collection, illicit data transfers to the authorities, or their sale to third parties. In this setting, individuals lack an explicit understanding of how their information is actually employed.

Indeed, confidentiality is a paramount concern, given the abundance of personal information housed within centralized services. These platforms harbor a multitude of drawbacks, from hacking risks to the infringement of an individual's right to private life. It is here that blockchain could play a pivotal role in rectifying the situation.

With its assistance, one could forge a secure storage format where the information is scattered across a multitude of nodes. Additionally, it would be possible to orchestrate a transparent data exchange system, where the user has the prerogative to dictate what data is shared, and with whom. If this is implemented, the government would not be able to acquire any information based solely on a single request and company approval.

The response to such an approach to information storage remains uncertain, but one thing is crystal clear: countries will not sanction developments within their territories without ensuring access to certain user data. This is evident in the actions of several governments, predominantly the United States', which demands that decentralized platforms undergo KYC procedures for all, precluding anonymous trading.

Nevertheless, the authorities could resort to a few courses of action. For instance, they could promulgate a law compelling all tech companies to prohibit the storage of essential data on the blockchain, thereby retaining their previous control. Or they could tread the path of absolute prohibition on the use of cryptocurrency and oversee the application of blockchain technology, much like what has transpired in China.

An alternate solution might involve the genesis of projects that amalgamate blockchain's security and responsiveness to government requests, albeit only with corresponding court orders. This could potentially be executed via smart contracts, mitigating risks of unlawful surveillance or corruption.