PRIVACY VERSUS PROFIT: THE NEXT BIG DEBATE
Not many people would oppose the proposition that consumers enjoy convenience and appreciate value. As the Internet has expanded and advanced, free content is increasingly available—and expected. Most of us seem to be aware that the corresponding proliferation of pop-ups and full-screen advertisements is the “price” we pay for this unfettered access. In fact, free information has, in some regards, been a victim of its own success: many people now see the advertisements as a distraction and an imposition. Of course, few of them would prefer a scenario where sites withdrew the ads but began charging for content. Magazines, newspapers and popular reference sites like dictionary.com all rely on revenue from advertisers in order to remain mostly or entirely free.
If the quid pro quo of enduring minor annoyance for free information seems like yesterday’s news, that’s because it is. The latest and more profound controversy revolves around the ways companies are now using user’s personal data. In July The Wall Street Journal published a study entitled “What They Know”, containing a series of articles detailing the history, practices and implications of the “cutting-edge uses of Internet-tracking technology.” This investigation adds to a growing number of similar features, no doubt inspired at least in part by the recent Facebook controversies—and founder Mark Zuckerberg’s less than impressive response to the outcry.
The reactions, once people get a better grasp on what exactly is going on, are often (and understandably) emotional. Personal information turned into salable data is, after all, about as intimate as it gets when one considers ostensibly private and/or secret preferences and behaviors being scrutinized, tracked and ultimately sold. It is, then, perhaps fair and appropriate to further contemplate the “strictly business” rationale which posits these developments as almost entirely positive signals of progress and mutually profitable engagement.
The debate, in starkest terms, seems to revolve around the issue of free-will versus awareness. Certainly, it is fair to suggest that virtually all non-business related online behavior is voluntary. Thus, it is ultimately the individual’s responsibility to understand the risks as well as the rewards associated with web-surfing, online purchases and the dissemination (however unintentional) of personal information. A strictly business advocate might make the analogy of whether or not it is acceptable for a citizen to press charges against an establishment serving drinks that impaired their driving ability. The complicated converse of this already controversial scenario is how quickly the culpability changes if it turns out the bartender had placed undetectable alcohol in someone’s iced tea. All of a sudden, the balance of blame is considerably altered. It would not be sufficient, legally or morally, to assert that the mere act of entering a bar compels an individual to be aware of any possible repercussions.
The deeper issue, in other words, extends beyond personal choice. Facebook, to be certain, allows users to utilize an opt-in agreement for sharing certain information. In this regard, users are obliged to be informed and accountable—which is one reason the recent attention Facebook’s privacy policies are getting is undeniably a positive development. On the other hand, companies should not require federal regulation (or even public outcry) to create clear and upfront messaging regarding the data they collect and the way(s) in which they intend to use—and profit from—it.
INTERNET TRACKING: SPYING OR STRICTLY BUSINESS?
In a piece for The Wall Street Journal’s series entitled “It’s Modern Trade: Web Users Get As Much As They Give”, Jim Harper (director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute) feels the rewards considerably outweigh the risks. He suggests that “data gleaned from (our) communications and transactions grease the gears of modern commerce.” While acknowledging the legitimacy of online privacy concerns, he strongly admonishes Web users to arm themselves with information to better protect their interests. There is little question that this is the first crucial step anyone should take, but it inexorably shifts the entire burden of responsibility to consumers.
Harper rather disingenuously compares online privacy to smoking: it is a personal matter and it’s up to the individual to ascertain the dangers. As it happens, the comparison is, perhaps unintentionally, apt: we now know that for decades cigarettes were not only considered harmless, substantial sums of money got spent promulgating positive, even healthy associations between smoking and lifestyle. Once contrary evidence inevitably emerged, inconceivable amounts of dollars were allocated to try and suppress or discredit these findings. All of which is to suggest that there is a fine line between caveat emptor and the emperor’s lack of clothes.
Today it would be unfair, even reckless, to imply that consumers are—or should be—fully aware of what they do (and have “done” to them) online, particularly when substantial money is at stake to keep these seemingly innocuous business practices surreptitious (as the Zuckerberg debacle illustrated). In a companion piece entitled “Tracking Is An Assault On Liberty With Real Dangers”, Nicholas Carr (author of The Shallows: What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains) recalls a Sun Microsystems chief executive, who in 1999 blithely explained “You have zero privacy. Get over it.” Carr then offers the examples, from 2006, of a team of scholars from the University of Minnesota, who “noted that most Americans can be identified by name and address using only their ZIP Code, birthday and gender—three pieces of information that people often divulge when they register at a website.”
According to a recent study of 1,000 U.S. adults, to date around one third (39%) of consumers admit to having posted personal contact information such as phone number, e-mail and mailing address, etc., online. Understandably, consumers have concerns regarding their privacy as it relates to their online information and activities. Over half (55%) of adults expressed concern about their privacy in relation to activities such as information, comments or opinions posted on social networking sites.
MEDICINAL PURPOSES
The stakes get more serious, and potentially far-reaching, when we consider the momentum behind making medical records available electronically. Heralded as a mutually beneficial advancement for both the industry and the consumer, the practical implications of a widespread transition are now being more closely scrutinized. For more than fifteen years, enterprising computer experts have exposed how easy it actually is to uncover an individual’s most private and sensitive information. Back in the ‘90s, medical data was aggregated (for research purposes) after being “scrubbed” of personal information such as names, addresses and social security numbers. Unfortunately, it has been proven that “87 percent of all Americans could be uniquely identified using only three bits of information: ZIP Code, birth date and sex” (Nate Anderson, 9-08-09).
When asked, seven in ten (72%) of adults expressed concern involving the use (and potential misuse) of their online medical records; ranking third among concerns such as identity theft and security of financial transactions.
For seemingly unobjectionable items such as photos or online movie reviews, there is the aforementioned caveat emptor element involved. When it comes to medical records (think diagnoses, prescriptions, family histories, etc.) the potential repercussions are almost indescribable. To be certain, much of the impetus behind making previously private (and in most cases, safeguarded) files more accessible is driven by the notion of patient empowerment. Many people have a legitimate and understandable desire for free and unencumbered access to their own health histories. This inclination is exacerbated by growing opinion that some doctors (and/or hospitals) have a guarded interest in making this information difficult to obtain.
Of course there are also undeniable practical considerations: just as e-books are environmentally friendly and potentially cost-efficient, much of the paper and proverbial red tape is eliminated once files are transferred online. It is then easier to imagine a best case scenario involving increased efficiency and more affordable health care. Or does it?
Obviously there is considerable up-front cost involved that will presumably equate to significant savings down the road, once the paperwork and administration costs are largely eliminated. Yet being compelled to comply with new procedures (overseen by the Health and Human Services Department) may prove onerous to smaller practices. Federal funding is available, which indicates the level of seriousness—and amount of deliberation—this project has already generated. Not surprisingly, widespread consumer acceptance and utilization of this development will require each individual to measure the rewards (easier access to one’s files) versus the risks (a computer glitch that with one errant keystroke could publish highly personal information). If people don’t (yet) take their Internet habits seriously enough, almost everyone has vested interest in their health. As such, public sentiment on this matter will be measured slowly over the next several years.
