Tech Special: Mark Leigh

So just how big is big data? In 2012, IBM estimated that 2.5 billion gigabytes of info were produced by the world per day – nowadays it’s growing too fast to quantify. But with advanced analytics, size isn’t the issue, it’s what data miners, specifically marketers – do with it that’s key. Mark Leigh, CCO at strategic communications consultancy Verbalisation, ponders privacy paranoia and says the industry must help consumers embrace, not fear, the algorithm

It’s a familiar theme in science fiction. Something unscrupulous and ‘big’ (it’s always ‘big’) enslaves the population with cunning technology that monitors, anticipates and manipulates the many for the elite few. And now it’s real. What’s possible today or in the very near future makes the imagined a very tangible reality.

Can we capture the biological traces you litter the world with and use that to sinister marketing effect? Most probably. Can we appropriate details of ID cards, bank cards and anything with a readable digital signature and use that information to confront you at every step with ‘appropriate’ interventions? Very likely. Can we watch your face, eavesdrop on you and adjust content to mirror your desires? Of course we can. And there’s so much more we can do as we aggregate, reorganise, process and profile, if we put our fiendish creative minds to it. All hail the algorithm!

The price of privacy

The truth is, it’s not really about what’s possible, but what’s probable. And as with all innovation, probability is determined by demand. Putting income aside, let’s simply say that price, preference and expectations drive demand. So, what is the real price of data privacy? How comfortable are we about other people capturing our information and doing stuff with it?

In the web’s early days, someone coined the phrase: ‘In the future privacy will be the currency of the internet’. Much has been built on this theme and the ethical collision in the ‘big’ data world.

Let’s begin with an understanding of the need for privacy when, after all, we are social animals. It’s fair to assert that the desire for privacy is partially socially and culturally inherited, but fundamentally, it’s about maintaining control and controlling our interactions with the world around us. However, as social media expert Danah Boyd notes, “Privacy is not about control over personal data but the control individuals think they have”.

“What’s possible today or in the very near future makes
the imagined a very tangible reality.”

We can see this play out in the degree of control that different generations think they exercise over big data. I hail from the older ‘control’ generation who suffer from mild paranoia, fuelled by stories of ID theft and the murky workings of digital mega-corporations. Having had early exposure to sci-fi versions of the future, we are slow to experiment – sensing an inexorable loss of control. Contrast this with the open, collaborative, life-in-full-view approach of younger generations, who rightly assume that a data-driven world is a done deal. They expect that the internet’s ‘crowd’ power will self-police – quickly vilifying those who misuse it.

They’re also wise to the covert approaches of ‘big data’, through opt-outs or ad blocking. But, if we come back to the demand drivers of price, preference and expectation, ironically it’s older users who probably have the most to gain from big data. They are the ones with the greatest appetite for filtering, relevance, customer service, bespoke and customised offers.

While the overall premise of the film Minority Report was chilling at the time, the ad-serving ideas were pretty cool. People could see the possibility of a world tailored to you. This might be our ‘Special K’ moment when we need to figure out ‘what we will gain when we lose’.

Nobody wants to lose control, but most of us are prepared to trade some data for a focused value proposition. So, the question is whether we have empowered people to make informed choices regarding their personal data. Do they really have control? If we are honest, we have made the control topic as opaque as is legally possible. Look at the countless pages of legalese that we have to constantly agree to.

Big can be beautiful

Until we can administer a simple risk assessment so people across generations and cultures can understand the control issue, and how to simply exercise choice, then we will need to maintain external controls and ethical watchdogs.

A future tailored to everyone, that cuts away redundant, time-wasting ‘blah’ and focuses on what’s important has to be a good thing. The real discussion is whether we choose the sinister, covert path that proves the sci-fi writers correct, or choose a different, more open route.

Once we understand the psychology that drives angst around big data, then we have an onus as an industry to demystify, simplify and reassure. Let’s reframe the dark side of ‘big’ and make it synonymous with liberty, salvation and humanity.
All hail the algorithm!