Balance on the Edge of Data: Alexander Grif on Why Privacy Has Become an Illusion and Data a New Weapon

Today, every click we make, every purchase, and every step past a street surveillance camera leaves a distinct digital footprint. The mass collection of data has become a reality: it helps governments prevent threats, develop “smart cities,” and catch cybercriminals. Yet each of us is bound to ask a reasonable question: is there still room for personal privacy in this world? Is privacy truly being sacrificed irrevocably in the name of security, or are we witnessing an inevitable evolution of society?

To explore where this invisible line lies, how the very concept of freedom has changed in the digital age, and why absolute anonymity is now a utopian idea, we spoke with Alexander Grif, an entrepreneur, IT and media expert, and head of the research laboratory for the study of cognitive, digital, and technological sovereignty at the International Research Institute for Advanced Systems.

Editorial: Alexander, let’s start with the fundamental question. There is a common saying: “If you’re not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to hide.” How applicable is this idea to today’s digital reality?

Alexander Grif: This is a dangerous misconception. The word “hide” is being used here as a substitute for the concept of “privacy.” Every person has areas of life that are not criminal in any way but remain deeply personal: family conversations, health conditions, financial plans, or even simply foolish search queries. Privacy is not about concealing crimes. It is about preserving human dignity and personal space.

When that space is taken away, our behavior changes: subconsciously, we begin to censor ourselves and act while constantly looking over our shoulders. And that is already a step toward losing our inner freedom.

Editorial: But governments collect data for the sake of our security. Facial-recognition cameras help identify criminals, while monitoring the Internet can prevent terrorist attacks. Isn’t the security of the majority more important than the privacy of a few?

Alexander Grif: Of course, protecting citizens is a fundamental function of the state. And it would be foolish to deny that technology makes this protection more effective. The real question is different: where does necessary oversight end and excessive control begin?

The state should act like a surgeon — with precision and only when there is a clear indication — rather than like an excavator scooping up everyone’s data indiscriminately. The real boundary is crossed when the collection of information stops being a response to a specific threat and turns into preventive, total surveillance of law-abiding citizens.

Security should not be built on the presumption that everyone with a smartphone is potentially guilty.

Editorial: And yet, where exactly is that line? Can it be defined legally or technologically?

Alexander Grif: Technologically, this is difficult because digital algorithms are evolving faster than legislation. Legally, however, the benchmark should be strict: purpose limitation and transparency.

If the state obtains a citizen’s data for a specific purpose — for example, issuing a passport or investigating a crime — that data should be used only for that purpose. Combining databases, when information from tax records, medical files, and geolocation data flows without a person’s knowledge into a single “digital profile” for commercial purposes or unjustified scoring is already a step across the line.

A citizen should know clearly: who has access to their digital identity, why they have it, and for how long.

Editorial: Today, massive amounts of data are controlled not only by government agencies but also by private IT giants, marketplaces, and social media platforms. Who poses the greater risk to individuals in this respect?

Alexander Grif: Corporations can often be more dangerous because their primary motivation is purely commercial, and that includes manipulating behavior. Ideally, the state is constrained by law and by a social contract. Corporations, by contrast, are constrained primarily by their pursuit of profit.

They know more about us than our closest relatives: what we buy, when we sleep, what emotions we experience. Based on this information, algorithms create echo chambers, feed us selected content, and shape our desires.

And this is where commercial interests converge with political ones. Whoever controls this data can influence public opinion on a national scale. That is precisely why, at our laboratory, we devote so much attention to cognitive sovereignty — protecting people’s minds from external manipulation through digital platforms.

Editorial: Does “absolute digital anonymity” still exist today, or is it a myth?

Alexander Grif: In 2026, it is a complete myth. If you use a smartphone, a bank card, or simply walk through the streets of a major city, you are already de-anonymized.

Even if you leave all social media platforms, telecommunications operators and fintech companies will continue collecting your digital footprint. Trying to achieve absolute anonymity today is like trying to stop a train with your bare hands.

We need to change our strategy: instead of fighting for the complete concealment of data, we should fight for strict control over how that data is used, along with severe penalties for data leaks and misuse.

Editorial: Looking ahead, will artificial intelligence make government control absolute, or could it also help citizens protect their rights?

Alexander Grif: AI is a tool, like fire. It can warm a house, or it can burn down a city.

Yes, AI is a supercharger for surveillance and control systems. It can analyze trillions of connections per second, identifying “unreliable” patterns of behavior. But protective technologies are evolving as well: local encryption, personal AI assistants capable of blocking surveillance and filtering incoming traffic, helping protect user privacy.

The future will be an ongoing battle between algorithms designed for protection and algorithms designed for control. Our task, as states and as societies, is to ensure that the human being does not become the casualty of that battle.

Key Takeaways

• The interview with Alexander Grif makes one thing clear: traditional, analog notions of personal privacy have irrevocably faded into the past.
• Digitalization is neither inherently good nor inherently bad; it is a new environment in which we live.
• The central challenge of our time is not to prohibit data collection, but to establish transparent and fair rules governing the relationship between individuals, businesses, and the state.
• Security is effective only when it protects the citizen rather than suppressing their individuality.