Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Erika Beckstrand
ENGL 2010
23 June 2017
Living today in a society that utilizes the internet for practically everything may also imply that there is
no reason to expect privacy. Many have said that privacy died with the dawn of the digital age. That privacy is
less important today than it was before and that even if we have, already, given privacy up the benefits are worth
it. While it is true that the technology that we have created can result in important innovation, it is not a
Few times, we consider the human implications of the development of digital technology. Rick Smolan,
an avid advocate for the proper consideration of big data implications has noted, Every time there's a new tool,
whether it's Internet or cell phones or anything else, all these things can be used for good or evil. Technology is
neutral; it depends on how it's used (Smolan). As Smolan points out it is ultimately us humans who decide how
we use technology. It is unreasonable to point at phones as the direct cause of phone scams and it is also
unreasonable to think that big data is responsible for the decisions we make with massive amounts of
information on individuals. The Internet and big data will have, in the future, a formidable sway in how we
understand humanity and the scope of the effect that our actions may have in society at every level.
The control we exert in technological advances implies that we can shape big data with ethical and
humane considerations. It is necessary that we decide what safeguards we need to put in place to protect
individuals and the public because we live in a world where data influences people. Abstract pieces of
information are used every day to decide events that shape peoples lives. Data, or information if you will, is
much more than simply ones and zeros. Information is a representation of reality and it has the capacity to
2
convey many crucial characteristics of the human experience of an individual. When individual pieces of
information are combined with others they have the potential to identify, describe and affect humans.
If presented only with 195457 N, 75823 W those coordinates might not mean much. On the other
hand, if, for example, we discovered that those coordinates represent the current and exact location of the Twitter
account @michaelbay, one could suggest that maybe Michael Bay has finally been imprisoned in Guantanamo
Bay for his direction of the Transformers movies. For the purposes of this example it only takes two points of
data to formulate a conjecture about the life of an individual. It is when this kind of aggregation happens that
data, by itself, is able to identify us and that becomes dangerous in the world in which we live. It is not far
fetched to think that consulting the physical presence of an individuals phone at the time of a crime might be
admissible evidence that not only the individual in question was present at the crime scene but also that he or she
Currently there is little done to consider the humanity inherent in the users of digital services. There are
plenty of stories about how companies violate peoples privacy. For example, if you emailed your veterinarian
about the death of your beloved pet it is likely that you will begin seeing ads related to pet care and veterinarian
services. According to Tania Lombrozo, an associate professor of psychology at the University of California,
Berkley, The problem is this: The data-mining tools that glean our interests and choose our ads don't fit into the
complex flow of information we've spent our lives charting and mastering. We don't have a map that tells us how
a particular bit of information made it from Point A to Point B, nor the social context that gives us insight into
why (Lombrozo). In her argument, Lombrozo, suggests that, as humans, we mentally create the social structure
that we know information will follow, but the structure of how our information propagates through advertisers
and data collectors remains obscured to us. These tendencies to disregard the human side of the interaction can
be reduced or managed better if the people it describes plays an active role in how the information is gathered,
The structure that guides the flow of data on the internet does not need to be obscured from the eyes of
the humans interacting with data services. According to Dr. Richard Mortier, a privacy researcher from
Cambridge University, there are three principal characteristics that Human-Data interactions should allow to
grant users dignity and control. Namely, they are legibility, agency and negotiability. (Mortier) These
interactions need to consider the user as an equal to the service and these characteristics mentioned by Dr.
Mortier would guarantee that these interactions happen in a plainly leveled field for both the user and the data
collecting entity.
Legibility defines the ability of the users to understand what information is collected and what we are
allowing the company to do with it. Often companies tend to think that making their privacy practices available
is enough, and although they have met the law requirements, it is not enough for the average user. The policies
need to be legible and understandable to the user. Thus, attempts to inform the user should, reasonably, be
pursued rather than releasing information about privacy in a dark corner of a rarely read document.
Agency establishes the power of the user in actively manage the data they are sharing. This aspect
requires that the user be able to provide, thanks to legibility, informed consent. Additionally, a user should be
able to correct mistakes that have been introduced through the inference of data already collected. For example,
if there is a store where a person buys only vegetables because they are fresher there, that particular store would
be inclined to think that this individual is a passionate vegan. On the other hand, if the same person buys only
meat at a different store because it is more convenient location for him or she, that other store, could infer that
this person is a dedicated carnivore. Each store only has a limited amount of information that, by itself, is not
enough to make the inferences they do make about a person. Regardless of this inevitable uncertainty, companies
make inferences about us every day without us being able to correct what they have asserted about us.
Algorithms that process our information are more accurate than ever but that does not mean they are perfect.
Only humans are capable of completely correcting those errors, as minimal as they might seem. Jamie Bartlett,
journalist for The Telegraph, indicates that in a survey of 1,464 UK consumers, Nine out of ten consumers
4
believe that they should be able to control what information organizations collect about me and what they use
this information for (Bartlett, 25). Even though this is a legitimate concern by the public, agency is not
achievable because of mainly two problems. One is that companies do not consider the user as the owner of the
information, and thus, wont allow the user to correct the information and second, we dont have the prerequisite
of legibility as a foundation for agency or in other words, users are unaware that information about them is being
collected.
Lastly, negotiability refers to the ongoing engagement of the user in the process of creating, capturing,
sharing, and analyzing the data that describes them. The interests and opinions of people change with time but
very few times do companies allow for users to represent those changes in interest. This lack of the ability to
correct information results in a disadvantage for the user. In the words of Mortier,
Although we agree that it may well be possible to enable an ecosystem using economic value models for
utilisation of personal data and marketplaces. We believe that power in the system isas of 2016
disproportionately in favour of the data aggregators that act as brokers and mediators for users, causing
the apparent downward trajectory of economic value in the information age. (Mortier)
With systems that implement negotiability a user would have the ability to change their mind and
renegotiate the terms that they have accepted because their perspective or themselves has changed. Humans after
all are changing entities that are hard to describe purely as information.
Once these three requirements have been met, users will enjoy of a finer, and informed, control of their
privacy. It is true that there are technical difficulties that will need to be solved, the prospect of an informed and
manageable state of privacy is very desirable in modern society. According to Glenn Greenwald, privacy
advocate and recognized journalist, There's a reason why privacy is so craved universally and instinctively. It
isn't just a reflexive movement like breathing air or drinking water. The reason is that when we're in a state
where we can be monitored, where we can be watched, our behavior changes dramatically. The range of
behavioral options that we consider when we think we're being watched severely reduce (Greenwald). If we do
5
not control the parameters and statutes that regulate how this sharing and capturing of data works, we are
yielding the privacy that we need to act freely. Additionally, we surrender a side of our behavior that we are only
This loss of freedom is well represented in an example, presented by Greenwald, where he explains that
a constant state of surveillance is a direct analog to an eighteenth century architectural design denoted
Panopticon. This design involved an elevated tower amid a prison, from where a guard could at any time
observe any one of the inmates. They, of course, did not have enough resources to watch all the inmates
constantly, but the uncertainty that inmates faced, of not knowing if they were being observed, pushed all of
them to assume they were being observed anyways. Greenwald argues that, mass surveillance creates a prison
in the mind that is a much more subtle though much more effective means of fostering compliance
(Greenwald). This effect of a prison in the mind is a concern because even when companies are not actively
trying to achieve such effect, the indiscriminate collection of data does cause such a loss of freedom.
There are critics that attempt to discredit the behavioral impact of big data by dismissing it in a single
phrase if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. While it does sound like a good proposal there
are few instances where, instinctively, we would allow such a level of pervasiveness to the point where we
literally would have nothing to hide. At least some aspects of our humanity remain inherently private to us.
The same way we wouldnt allow a stranger in our bedroom, the idea that a company may, through geophysical
position and internet connection, assert that we are indeed in our bedroom by ourselves is troubling to say the
least. The other end of the phrase you have nothing to fear, although indirectly, implies that a person could live
such a trivial way that their own existence is of no interest or value to anyone. If a person was serious about not
allowing anyone to collect any data about themselves in any significant way, we might as well be describing a
person that has no interaction with any other human, or a person who doesnt exist in any meaningful way. It
seems clear that those radical points of view are unreasonable expectations of any individual in the twenty first
6
century. One should feel free and unrestrained to explore all the depth of human curiosity without having to
sacrifice the interactions and richness that the modern world offers us.
Today, many of the worlds companies are technically capable of providing meaningful and useful
technologies. Several of these allow us to enjoy the human experience at a greater depth. We are able to talk
instantly to virtually anyone across the globe. We can share our lives with loved ones who are physically
separated from us and we can enjoy of the shared memories that these digital interactions provide.
The issue, for many, is that because companies provide these very valuable services they are entitled to
collect data without constraints and considerations, thus, regarding the data as a sole property of the company.
This sense of ownership may stem from the fact that it was their services and infrastructure that allowed the
creation and capture of the data. This conjecture is incomplete because it fails to recognize that the information
was created, in most cases, as a result of human activity. It also would be unfair to say that the user is the only
entitled of some benefit derived from their information. Because many of this services have been created by
privately own corporations, this means that a clear majority of the public use a service they did not create or help
create in any meaningful way. The investment required to develop online services is of sizeable proportions and
needs to be protected through the profit it enables. It is precisely profit that drives this kind of innovation. After
all, this data can be traded and monetized when it is analyzed and this analysis requires software and
The process of collecting and analyzing data in massive amounts yields ways of revenue that can be
used in order to provide financial wealth to the individual and society. This new way to obtain revenue is being
adopted more than ever. It allows creators and providers of services to obtain significant compensation from
their work without interfering much with the experience of the users, or without requiring users to pay directly
for such services. Google has pioneered much of the work in developing this revenue sources. Many of the
services they provide are increasingly valuable to all of human kind. Never have we had such a vast collection of
satellite imagery of practically the entirety of earth, or been able to trace driving instructions that considered real
7
time transit data, these achievements exist today because private companies decided to provide this service for
free while collecting and analyzing the data that their service produces.
However, as we have discussed before the data that is produced through a service most likely will
influence people in complex ways. The internet, as a service, is no longer separated from a physical reality and
data is the fuel that powers driving change on the internet. Whatever data we create online, including data
generated and collected in our behalf, will to one degree or another affect our lives. For example, you can read
the privacy statement of the famous presentation design website called Prezi.
With respect to Private User Content, you hereby do and shall grant to Prezi (and its successors,
assigns, and third party service providers) a worldwide, non-exclusive, revocable, royalty-free, fully
paid, sublicensable, and transferable license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative
works, communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, distribute and transmit the content
SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE of providing you, and those with whom you have shared your
One could argue that by providing the service Prezi is entitled to use the generated data for their own
benefit. Moreover, that Prezi requires to have such vast grants over that data to operate. But a different point of
view suggests that while Prezi does provide a valuable service the created works are not their property and the
requested grants are so broad that it may hinder the rights of the actual creator of the content, their users.
There are solutions that can satisfy both user and data collector. Dr Mortier suggests that instead of
concerning themselves so much with collecting data, the companies could potentially provide computational
means, like a program or other software, that will analyze the data that has been collected separately for the user
and communicate the analysis for the benefit of the company. Thus, the user can be given the service intended,
the company retains the intellectual property of their software and analysis tools, and the users data is kept
private and relatively secured. Once the user has been informed, in a clear non-trivial manner, he or she could
Human innovation and ingenuity can provide the means to allow both marvelous technological advances
and guarantee the privacy of the individuals that such advances serve. While there are many questions that need
to be answered regarding big data, it is also clear that there are profound human implications for all of us. Many
of the decisions that we make will become foundational for the freedoms that we retain.
A future, where technological advances that benefit humanity are made through data being collected
does not need to be a grim world. Similar to the oppressive and tyrannical world portrayed in the words of the
famous novel 1984, where people are prompted to say that, it [is] terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander
when you are in a public place (Orwell, 55). In fear that dissent might prove fatal to you. We can retain that
much sought freedom that privacy protects and still allow for the worlds technology to flourish and provide us
Works Cited
Bartlett, Jamie. The Data Dialog. London, UK, Demos, 2012, www.demos.co.uk/files/The_Data_Dialogue.pdf.
Greenwald, Glenn. Why privacy matters. Glenn Greenwald: Why privacy matters | TED Talk | TED.Com,
Lombrozo, Tania. Why Personalized Internet Ads Are Kind Of Creepy. NPR, NPR, 13 Jan. 2014,
www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/01/12/261855182/why-personalized-internet-ads-are-kind-of-creepy.
Mortier, Richard, et al. Human-Data Interaction: The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/ricksmolan705112.html