The demise of society threatens our privacy

Societal concerns are increasingly left to the marketplace to resolve. We no longer discuss and prioritise societal issues in a dialogue with society as a whole. We no longer share, discuss, or build a vision on long term solutions to the problems that we face. They are no longer solved at the (super)national level, by imposing laws or regulations, or creating economic incentives through grants or tax rules. Instead we rely on the concerns and personal choices of individual citizens to create societal change, in the hope that individual decisions in ‘the marketplace’ will create such change as some kind of emergent behaviour.

Concerns about child labour in the fashion industry are left to be addressed by individual consumers that may or may not buy clothes responsibly. Instead of addressing the underlying causes of unhealthy behaviour, we leave it to individual citizens to change, say, their bad food consumption patterns and stop the global population becoming more obese every year. We fail to create long term strategies to make our economies more sustainable, and instead rely on individuals to invest in solar panels, buy organic food, use their cars less often, etc.

Societal concerns suddenly become the responsibility of the individual citizen, who may be unwilling or incapable to act. The whole approach is based on (the big) assumption that individual action is always possible, useful and efficient.

This is a big assumption. For more complex societal problems, take climate change, individual citizens may find it hard to understand or to agree with the problem in the first place. Information on how to solve the problem may be hard to find, hard to understand, or simply contradict other sources of information. All this information is not necessarily easily translated into concrete, useful individual actions.

There are many other problems with this personal control frame. Individual actions may feel foolish or useless if fellow citizens are not perceived to act responsible too. It may put people into a prisoner’s dilemma: their actions will only benefit society if a majority joins the effort, but may actually incur (large) individual costs if most fellow citizens decide not to act. Finally, people are known to value short term gains higher than any favourable long term objectives.

What, you may ask, has this got to do with privacy and civil liberties?

The marketplace has become digital. Personal preferences can now be expressed more directly, through direct interaction with the consumer or the citizen. Personal preferences can also be measured by monitoring our behaviour on the digital platforms we use too stay in contact with our friends, listen to the music we like, read the books we like, view the movies and TV shows we like, and the websites we visit. These platforms may enable the expression of our own preferences, but do so with very little control over who learns about our preferences, and what the consequences of selecting and expressing our preferences are.

Technology is used to support and advance the idea that we can rely on the concerns and personal choices of individual citizens to create societal change.
Technology platforms are created to support users to make such individual decisions. The main idea is often to provide feedback to the users based on their current or past behaviour, that will allow them to adjust their behaviour where necessary. Smart electricity meters, for example, allow users to see how much energy they consume, and at what time. This allows them to link certain behaviour to peaks of energy consumption. Personal health tracking appliances (like Fitbit) allow people to measure a wide range of vital statistics about their health, and act accordingly.

The problem with these platforms is that they not only share this information with the people directly concerned, but also collect and process this information for other purposes. This often happens in quite an nontransparent way, without direct consent, and without clear and easily applied control by the user. In order to ‘learn what we want’ governments and businesses keep a close eye on every move we make.

In fact, even privacy itself is made such a societal concern for the protection of which we depend on the individual choices of consumers… This really creates a vicious cycle. As the social structures around us decay, there are fewer common norms and agreements that we can rely on to guide us through our daily life. As a result we need to negotiate such norms and agreements with the people we live and deal with, and services we interact with, more often. This means exchanging information, exposing our preferences, for every little detail that needs negotiating. And the only way to break this vicious cycle, is to negotiate it over the platforms that created it in the first place.

This is a dangerous state of affairs. The platforms used to support this vision of individual choice are hardly neutral. Their look, feel and design, their algorithms all encode the values of those responsible for their design. The way such a platform ‘works’ has a huge influence on the preferences we (implicitly or explicitly) express. Like marketing has a huge influence on what the average citizen consumes, such platforms influence how we behave on and within the platform itself. These platforms have a huge impact on their emergent behaviour and hence on the societal change, the solution of societal problems, the burden of which we have shifted to the choices of the individual.

Companies like Facebook, Google, Uber, Airbnb are backed, led and funded by people with a strong libertarian conviction: they strongly support private property and free-market capitalism, while rejecting most or all state functions and accompanying social structures. Their goal is not merely to provide great services and make a lot of money in the process. Their goal is to change society. On their terms. The question we face as society is whether we agree with these terms. And if not, define our own terms, and defend them. By word of mouth, and through concrete action. By developing the tools that encode the principles that we value in our society.

(This article is inspired by two news paper articles that appeared in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant of February 21, 2015. They appeared almost next to each other, but didn’t connect the dots…. This blog post originally appeared on my own blog)

3 thoughts on “The demise of society threatens our privacy

  1. Tim Cole February 25, 2015 / 4:44 pm

    I think this is a pretty good discription of how digitalization and networking is changing society by breaking down large, monolithic organiszations like nation states and instead leaving us to form smaller and smaller communities that are self-regulating and autonomous. For better or for worse, we need to set our own rules within these communities, including ways to enforce them.

    If enough customers are pissed off by corporations ripping their data without their consent, they will choose alternatives. Facebook runs roughshod over our (at least in Europe) constitutional right to informational self-determination, and most people could care less. Those who do can choose to switch, for instance, from What’s App to Snapchat because that app allows you to determine what happens when you send someone a message; it will in fact delete the message after the recipient has read it if you so wish.

    Axciom, one of the largest data brokers in the U.S., recently announced it will open its database and allow us to see what they have stored about us. We can even correct false or innacurate personal info. Asked why they are doing this, the CEO, Scot E. Howe, said that they are feeling pressure from “the market” (viz. regulators and consumers), so they opted to be proactive. “It’s better to be part of the solution than part of the problem”, he said in a press conference.

    Remember: These are still very early days, and it’s like back when the robber barons ruled the Gilded Age. The Digital Society will eventually find solution to most of these problems. At least I hope we will. But to do this, we need to accept responsibility. We can’t call for governments to do it for us because governments are becoming increasingly irrelevant in this context (not to mention disfunctional…)

    Like

  2. Laurence Millar February 25, 2015 / 6:10 pm

    Thanks for the ideas Japp-Henk; they describe the current and future dangers, although I am not sure there are a set of “principles that we value in our society” – refer the discussion on Established social Norms earlier.

    Two reactions to Tim’s comments:.

    1. I think these is plenty of research (sorry can’t cite any) that most individuals place much higher value on short term gratification relative to long term benefits, and are also influenced by the values of their friends and colleagues. This allowed a broad set of interests to be brought together to get a set of rules that involved compromise – and not just regulation by large, monolithic organisations like nation states. I do see that the smaller and smaller communities are congregating around a narrower set of common values and almost atomising in their specialisation.

    2. I am not persuaded of the power of individual choice when up against the steamroller of monopollists. It has always taken organised power to oppose these forces, either through government regulation or unions.

    Like

    • Tim Cole February 25, 2015 / 6:59 pm

      There was a great discussion in Frankfurt, home of the giant German trade union DGB, wheer somebody asked: “What will teh role of trade unions be in a digital society”. After a painful silence, somebody piped up saying: “Maybe Facebook will ´be the trade union of the future. After all, if enough people trash an unfair employer on FB, that will create as much moral pressure as people marching around in front of corporate HW with placards”. I though that rather interesting…

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s