“People say that if you go on the Internet, then you must be telling the world – but why? Why does it need to be that way?"

 

The perception of our own and others' privacy is changing very quickly. Sharing more about ourselves, explicitly or implicitly, is now easier than ever, with the potential of that information going to more people than ever – intentionally or otherwise.

 

Angel investor Julian Ranger has worked with data and privacy issues for many years. His first company, Stasys, provided network and system consultancy, eventually ending up being part of Lockheed Martin. Current investments include DADapp, a service to securely share information between friends and family; and Favorit, producers of Twitter search/retweet engine Tweetme and tweet analyser Datasift. These investments take very different approaches to personal data; from retaining it within a tightly-defined group, to mining data which was always intended to be open.

 

Ranger finds this change in “social rules”, from a tight definition of privacy to one of open sharing, as a short-term challenge which could grow into a long-term social problem.

 

“Why do we put up with an Internet which forces us to have a whole series of rules, so that we can carry on with the way in which we have always wanted to live? The Internet should be a positive thing, and we are allowing it to drag us down with some negative aspects, which aren't that difficult to cure, if we try.”

 

Although technology by definition opens up new possibilities and can change our desires, Ranger believes that the personal sense of, and right to, privacy, is constant. We don't suddenly become more open, just because we are communicating through a screen.

 

Ranger considers many social websites as “tricking the average user”. Facebook, which Ranger acknowledges as having many positive features, is seen as not being entirely clear on privacy, from the first step. The example given is of the initial user registration, inviting us to find our friends. Once the network develops, Ranger believes that this supposedly tight network between friends is a highly trusted one, where anything can be shared – without the understanding that, unless the appropriate privacy filters are physically set in place by the user, such information can then be viewed and retrieved elsewhere, by many other, unidentified, people.

 

According to Ranger, examples already exist of simple data management for consumers, although adoption is the result of lot of background activity and thinking.

 

“We need to look at what we ended up doing with the data explosion of the 1980s and 90s, with companies owning a lot of data. We have ended up with two checkboxes on all forms; one of which is for the company to use my data for other purposes, and one is to sell data to partners. We all know what those boxes are for; we need the equivalent of these simple principles online. The rules that we have, would then become superfluous.

 

“It took quite a long time just to get to these two little checkboxes. The Data Protection Act was foul for many of us when it first came in, and it takes time for all these things to settle down, physically or digitally. We can argue until the cows come home as to whether the MPS Register, or the national ID scheme, are good or bad things. Holding data, and what you do with it, is a difficult problem. Social rules will be in flux as things happen – terrorism, exploitation of loopholes, and so on.

 

Although offline media is now comfortable with the relationship between consumers and data, digital media has created a level of confusion regarding sharing and privacy.

 

“The average user doesn't think about it. If things are portrayed in such a way, then we don't question it. When you talk to people about privacy, then their first reaction is to consider the situation to be untrue. The clear rationale of a lack of privacy is to make money.

 

 

 

 

In the future, Ranger believes that brands which both understand these rules while obeying social norms, will do better. However, right now, it's rather like the lawless Wild West. Honest, private, obeying brands, according to Ranger, simply won't do as well as the others. Brands can respect people's long-held beliefs regarding privacy, as well as utilising new features and benefits of the Internet – but the trade-off is the potential to be less competitive through a more restricted user interface.

 

 

Although this suggests that we could see a more balanced relationship between consumers and data-rich websites in the future, this vision does not easily lend itself to regulation. Ranger doesn't believe that politicians have the inclination to deal with the wide and varied range of privacy issues that face consumers, and that governmental regulation is possible if self-regulation does not occur.

 

“Google picked up everyone's wifi signal and some data, but they didn't do anything with it, and didn't intend to. They were slammed, where others have undertaken much worse activities, and glide under the radar.

 

 

The avoidance of this territorial carving-up of the Web according to national jurisdictions, starts with one small step.

 

“We need to be clearer, and we are not clear. We are failing on clarity regarding what we are doing, and we are failing on privacy.”

 

 

Pin It