The Online Collection of Consumer Data: Protecting Your Online Privacy
Written by: Ann Germany, Churchill Club VolunteerPrivacy was the topic of discussion this past Tuesday evening as guests gathered at the Parc 55 Wyndham Hotel in San Francisco to participate in a discussion on “The Online Collection of Consumer Data: The Good, The Bad, and the Unknown” sponsored by Microsoft.
In honor of Data Privacy Day, the Churchill Club featured a panel of thought leaders with deep expertise on the topic. The panelists were Jim Adler, Chief Privacy Officer & General Manager, Data Systems, Intelius; Nick Bicanic, CEO and Founder, echoecho; Jules Cohen, Director of Online Privacy, Microsoft; Nicole Ozer, Technology and Civil Liberties Policy Director, ACLU of Northern California; and Paul Schwartz, Faculty Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, UC Berkeley. The panel was moderated by Jules Polonetsky, Co-Chair and Director, Future of Privacy Forum.
Letting the Government in to Keep Everyone Else Out
According to Microsoft, fifty six percent of adults surveyed don’t actively think about the consequences of their online activities. So the question stands, who should be protecting the data that consumers share in their online activities? Polonetsky asked whether the government should play this role. The speakers agreed that it is the government’s job to protect its citizens, but when it comes to online privacy, the government’s role is fuzzy. Do we really want regulatory agencies to have access to all of our private data? Or would we rather give the government access to it, in order to keep it from getting into someone else’s hands? These questions are not easily answered. Privacy is a guaranteed right in the United States, but who gets to decide what information is too private? Schwartz suggested there is an important need for government access in order to prevent potential harm to citizens, including threats posed by cyber bullying or stalking. But Ozer pointed out that those needs shouldn’t give government agencies (or anyone else) the right to share that information.
Privacy Statements: Does Anyone Actually Read Them?
Consumers are actively downloading various apps and programs and registering for new services on a daily basis. Most of these come with a privacy statement. But who actually reads them. According to Ozer, it would take an average person 200 hours to read all of the privacy statements for the technologies they use. The desire to understand our privacy rights takes a back seat to the desire to get on with using our new social media accounts or smartphone apps. Adler emphasized the need of consumers to be more aware of what is happening with their smartphones – Which apps are recording or broadcasting your location? How much of your Facebook data can be provided to third parties? Is Google archiving every Web page you visit? Simple awareness can make a big difference in how much information consumers consent to sharing, and how they go about shaping their online personas for more accurate targeting.
Members of the audience posed questions to the panel revealing their insight into the topic:
One member of the audience asked the panelists to elaborate on the issue of accountability. Cohen conveyed the Microsoft Trustworthy Computing group’s perspective and distinguished between how you are going to be accountable versus what you are going to be accountable for. Further clarifying Microsoft’s position, he referred to their corporate governance program which establishes standards and the role of a Chief Privacy Officer.
A question was posed to Schwartz in reference to his mention of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. “Has he ever seen a reputation index in which people could obtain personal information other than financial?” Schwartz’ response outlined two of the main challenges facing the availability of such an index: 1) collection of the personal data which remain scattered and 2) arguments against the centralization of this data.
Consumer Data – A Steam Engine?
Schwartz nicely framed the issue at hand by drawing an analogy between consumer data available online to the introduction of steam engines. The ensuing period was marked by a national discourse which was necessary to identify and understand the consequences resulting from this new mode of transportation. Adler readily agreed with Schwartz’ analogy and reminded the audience that as a society we must engage in a dialogue to address the tensions arising from the economic opportunities of mining personal data and balance those against the consumer’s desire to protect their privacy. Adler’s position was that the basis of this dialogue must rest on an educated and informed consumer. Judging from tonight’s audience and panel discussion, the steam engine has left the round house and is chugging up mountains, ducking around passes and is well on track.
Watch the complete program ‘The Collection of Online Consumer Data’ on Churchill Club’s YouTube channel.
