Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 31 to 40.
Many jurisdictions zealously protect suspects from self-incrimination, yet ordinary netizens are routinely nudged – or plainly coerced – into divulging intimate data that can later be weaponised against them. The analogy is unsettling: if the state may not prise open your phone, why may platforms prise open your life? [I] In digital markets configured around consent fatigue and dark patterns, individuals are rendered complicit in their own exposure. To arrest this perversity, reformers argue for data fiduciaries – actors bound by duties of loyalty and care – not merely better privacy notices or labyrinthine settings.
Online, the most delicate signals – health status, trauma histories, precarious finances – are siphoned, scored, and auctioned to the highest bidder. These dossiers feed targeting engines that steer people toward exploitative products and discriminatory decisions. Some intermediaries behave like data vultures, thriving on asymmetries of knowledge and power. [II] If trust is the axle of fiduciary relations, vulnerability is the wheel that turns upon it: by entrusting what matters, we are exposed; by accepting entrustment, professionals owe us trustworthiness – and must never turn that knowledge against us.
Fiduciary duties arise precisely where expertise and incentives can diverge from a client’s welfare – finance, medicine, law, and now data. Fiduciaries must act in the data subject’s best interests, and, when conflicts materialise, must subordinate their own; if unwilling to carry that burden, they should refuse entrustment. This ethical grammar converts discretion into obligation. [III] It also clarifies accountability: misuse is not a mere terms-of-service breach but a dereliction of duty toward someone rendered dependent by design.
Critics protest that Big Tech already owes fiduciary loyalty to stockholders, especially under Delaware doctrine prioritising shareholder welfare. But doctrines admit ordering: user-first duties could be given priority where interests clash, or fines could be set so steep that compliance becomes the rational path. [IV] Ultimately, alignment is the point: if companies wish to risk our data, they should risk their business in tandem. Absent such stakes, they will continue to gamble with others’ exposure while keeping the winnings.
(Adapted from Ada Lovelace Institute, “The ethical case for data fiduciaries”)
Question 31. The word perversity in paragraph 1 mostly means ______.
A. sharply contrary B. mildly eccentric
C. broadly normative D. loosely benign