Respecting digital privacy

‘Yeah, if it’s something free, man, I’ll give them my information.’
‘No way, I don’t give my phone number to anyone.’

Two comments by Blyk members on different points of a spectrum sent me to re-visit research on people’s perception of risk (Stuart Sutherland’s book, Irrationality, is a good place to start if you’re interested). Warned of the pitfalls of making personal information available (of spam attacks; of the potential for fraud; of pictures, posted for fun, that come back to haunt you) why do some people seem not to guard their ‘digital privacy’ particularly closely?

- We’re not statisticians: for most people, the good experiences outweigh the bad. So for the handful of companies that have bombarded you with unwanted emails or messages there are many more that haven’t. Rationally, a good experience in the past doesn’t mean the next experience will be good, but we’re unlikely to see it that way unless we force ourselves to think like statisticians. Most of us don’t; for if we did, everyday decision-making would become pretty unwieldy.

- Our experience and memory are limited: it’s hard to envisage the consequences of a serious violation of privacy before it happens. If it hasn’t happened to you, or to anyone you know well, warnings from computer safety educators or news stories about fraud victims won’t pop into mind, especially not at the point you’re making your decision to accept an offer in return for handing over personal data. The offer is far more salient personally, and far more likely to trigger a response.

- We’re clubbable: perhaps most influentially, most of us are group animals, generally comfortable to work within organisations, join clubs, be with others at events etc. Cooperative group behaviour (driving on the same side of the road, paying for goods in shops, expecting transport to operate to a timetable) is just part of everyday life. While we may be aware that the organisations we deal with are using our data to target us for marketing or other purposes (in fact many, including Blyk, are quite explicit about this), we expect them to be respectful and cooperative. Some Facebook members recently had a taste of uncooperative treatment when they found their browsing and purchasing behaviour tracked and displayed by Facebook’s Beacon advertising program. How was this resolved? By the group influence of the American campaigning organisation, MoveOn, which people signed up to (registering their contact details in the process, of course).

It may be that we are all on the brink of serious uncooperative experiences with the web tools we use. Commentators have suggested that the Facebook Beacon fracas was but the tip of an iceberg. But, unfettered by strict rationality, most of us surf optimistically, join in and enjoy web experiences.

Getting inside people’s decision-making, to inject caution before commitment is likely to be extremely difficult (even with well-understood hazards, such as smoking and alcohol, health educators have difficulty getting their message across). But given that there is a likelihood that many people will continue to act humanly and, therefore, incautiously, there is an opportunity for companies to commit openly to respectful data handling. It may cramp their style for trading data in the future, but as more companies commit themselves to rigorous standards, those that don’t will stand out. Maybe this contrast could pique people’s consciousness just enough for them to ask ‘whatever they’re offering, do I want to hand my data over to them?’

7 comments December 6th, 2007