The Three Paths to Privacy
Keywords:
Data protection, privacy, United States, European Union, ChinaAbstract
In the field of data governance, a comparative analysis of the policies pursued by the European Union, the United States, and the People’s Republic of China can be represented through three historical metaphors with clearly differentiated regulatory logics: the Camino de Santiago, Route 66, and the Silk Road. The Camino de Santiago, characterized as a supranational network of protection, hospitality, and shared rules, reflects the approach of the European Union, where privacy is conceived as a fundamental right. In this sense, the medieval pilgrim and the digital citizen share a framework designed to protect them during their journey, ensuring that mobility (whether physical or digital) remains a central element of European cohesion and identity. By contrast, the American Route 66 symbolized a conception of mobility associated with individual freedom and entrepreneurial spirit. Along Route 66, rules were minimal and the driver assumed responsibility for managing risks and opportunities. This logic is consistent with the U.S. regulatory tradition, characterized by limited state intervention and a strong preference for self-regulation and the free market. The Silk Road, as a historical route of controlled exchange and a tool for projecting imperial strategic power, helps explain the Chinese model, which is based on digital sovereignty, the centrality of the state, and the primacy of national security. Chinese legislation establishes a regime that combines formal protection of the individual with a pronounced authoritarian dimension. Taken together, these three models reveal a fragmented global landscape in which rights-based, liberal–market-oriented, and sovereignist approaches coexist, generating structural tensions in data governance and in its regulatory viability
References
Carrizo, David. “Reflexiones a propósito de la protección de datos en el escenario global digital: El derecho de daños en la litigiosidad internacional.” Revista Boliviana de Derecho, no. 31 (2021): 445–472.
Chen, Yawei, Darrell M. West y Xiaoqian Sun. “How China’s Social Credit System Currently Works: Evidence from Shanghai and Credit China Data.” Brookings Institution, 2021.
Comisión Europea. “EU–US Data Privacy Framework: Questions and Answers on the Adequacy Decision.” 13 de diciembre de 2022.
Comisión Europea. “Servicios – estadísticas.” Acceso el 8 de marzo de 2026.
Comité Europeo de Protección de Datos (EDPB). Recomendaciones 02/2020 sobre las garantías esenciales europeas para medidas de vigilancia. Adoptadas el 10 de noviembre de 2020.
Creemers, Rogier. “China’s Conception of Cyber Sovereignty: Rhetoric and Realization.” En Governing Cyberspace: Behavior, Power, and Diplomacy, editado por Dennis Broeders y Bibi van den Berg. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2020.
Cruz Villalón, Pedro. Conclusiones del Abogado General en el asunto C-347/10, A. Salemink v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen. 8 de septiembre de 2011. ECLI:EU:C:2011:562.
Dai, Wei. “Social Credit: The China Story, Part XIX.” The China Project. 2019.
Economy, Elizabeth C. The Third Revolution: Xi Jinping and the New Chinese State. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Fukuyama, Francis. “What Kind of Regime Does China Have?” Journal of Democracy 31, no. 1 (2020): 5–20.
Huang, Yasheng. The Rise and Fall of the EAST: Examination, Autocracy, Stability, and Technology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021.
Jacques Delors Institute. Europe in the World: Mapping the EU’s Digital Trade—A Global Leader Hidden in Plain Sight? París: Jacques Delors Institute, 2023.
Kennedy, Scott. China’s Uneven High-Tech Drive: Implications for the United States. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2020.
King, Gary, Jennifer Pan y Margaret E. Roberts. “How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression.” American Political Science Review 107, no. 2 (2013): 326–343.
Kostka, Genia. “China’s Social Credit Systems and Public Opinion: Explaining High Levels of Approval.” New Media & Society 21, no. 7 (2019): 1565–1593.
Kuner, Christopher. “Reality and Illusion in EU Data Transfer Regulation Post Schrems.” German Law Journal 18, no. 4 (2017): 881–918.
Leibold, James. “Surveillance in China’s Xinjiang Region: Ethnic Sorting, Coercion, and Inducement.” Journal of Contemporary China 29, no. 121 (2019): 46–60.
MacKinnon, Rebecca. Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom. New York: Basic Books, 2012.
Mallaby, Sebastian. The Power Law: Venture Capital and the Making of the New Future. New York: Penguin Press, 2022.
Mistale, Taylor. “Limits That Public International Law Poses on the European Union Safeguarding the Fundamental Right to Data Protection Extraterritorially.” En Transatlantic Jurisdictional Conflicts in Data Protection Law: Fundamental Rights, Privacy and Extraterritoriality, editado por Taylor Mistale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023.
Mozur, Paul. “Inside China’s Dystopian Dreams: A.I., Shame and Lots of Cameras.” New York Times. 8 de julio de 2018.
NOYB – European Center for Digital Rights. “La Comisión Europea da un tercer asalto ante el TJUE a las transferencias de datos entre la UE y EE. UU.” 10 de agosto de 2023.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2021: Times of Crisis and Opportunity. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2021.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Declaration on Government Access to Personal Data Held by Private Sector Entities.” OECD Legal Instruments. 13 de mayo de 2023.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Moving Forward on Data Free Flow with Trust: New Evidence and Analysis of Business Experiences. OECD Digital Economy Papers, no. 353. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023.
Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC). Acuerdo General sobre el Comercio de Servicios (AGCS). 1994.
Otero García-Castrillón, Carmen. Protección de datos en la economía digital: Una aproximación desde la regulación del comercio internacional. Pamplona: Thomson Reuters Aranzadi, 2021.
Parlamento Europeo. Exchanges of Personal Data after the Schrems II Judgment. Bruselas: Parlamento Europeo, 2021.
Parlamento Europeo y Consejo de la Unión Europea. Reglamento (UE) 2016/679 relativo a la protección de las personas físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento de datos personales y a la libre circulación de estos datos (Reglamento General de Protección de Datos). DOUE L 119, 4 de mayo de 2016.
Perry, Elizabeth J. “Cultural Governance in Contemporary China.” En Routledge Handbook of Chinese Governance, editado por Chris Ogden. London: Routledge, 2020.
Qiang, Xiao. “The Road to Digital Unfreedom: President Xi’s Surveillance State.” Journal of Democracy 30, no. 1 (2019): 53–67.
Roberts, Margaret E. Censored: Distraction and Diversion Inside China’s Great Firewall. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018.
Roland, Gérard, y Nancy Qian. “The Evolution of China’s Development Strategy.” NBER Working Paper no. 29343. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2021. DOI: 10.3386/w29343.
Schwartz, Paul M., y Karl-Nikolaus Peifer. “Structuring International Data Privacy Law.” International Data Privacy Law 9, no. 1 (2019): 7–21.
Segal, Adam. When China Rules the Web: Technology in Service of the State. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 2018.
Semiconductor Industry Association. State of the U.S. Semiconductor Industry 2020. Washington, DC: Semiconductor Industry Association, 2020.
The White House. “Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New AI Actions and Receives Additional Major Voluntary Commitments on AI.” 26 de julio de 2024.
The Transatlantic Economy 2021: Digital Acceleration. The Transatlantic Economy. 2021.
Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea. Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd y Maximillian Schrems. Asunto C-311/18. Sentencia de 16 de julio de 2020 (Schrems II).
Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea. Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner. Asunto C-362/14. Sentencia de 6 de octubre de 2015 (Schrems I).
U.S. Department of Commerce. “EU–U.S. Data Privacy Framework.” Data Privacy Framework Program.
United States. Communications Decency Act. 47 U.S.C. § 230 (1996).
United States Congress. Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act). S.2383. 115th Cong. 2018.
Unión Europea. Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea. L 112. 24 de abril de 2012.
Unión Europea y República de Chile. Agreement Establishing an Association between the European Community and Its Member States, of the One Part, and the Republic of Chile, of the Other Part. 2002.
Wübbeke, Jost, Mirjam Meissner, Max J. Zenglein, Jaqueline Ives y Björn Conrad. Made in China 2025: The Making of a High-Tech Superpower and Consequences for Industrial Countries. Berlin: Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS), 2016.
Zheng, Yongnian, y Lance L. P. Gore. Technological Innovation and China’s Reform: The Dynamics of Change. London: Routledge, 2022.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2026-11-08 (2)
- 2026-04-28 (1)
