Posts filed under ‘Privacy’
Big Data is seeing huge volumes of transaction data (it has been called “the new oil“) stockpiled and mined from sources as diverse as consumer financial transactions to mobile phone usage and locations to toll charges and so-on
But we are also seeing a variety of reactions that seek to liberate or democratise access to the related personal data. The emphasis is that the individual is responsible for, and in control of, their own personal data.
I have mooted this issue previously in the post Will This Be The Start of CMR as Opposed to CRM?
This is an area we need to monitor to be ready if their is a major change, whether legislatively or politically. And as usual, I would suggest that a responsible and responsive (let alone sensitive) attitude is fundamental when it comes to handling personal data.
In typical form, The Economist adds a humorous twist to the tail end of a dry subject:
A report from the World Economic Forum declared that data locked in servers are like “money hidden under a mattress”. The Ecomomist is is less than piquant with its suggestion that “many people still think personal data are more like personal odour—involuntary, embarrassing, and best not shared at all.“
Most marketers presume that customers want more “engagement” — interacting as much as possible with them and building relationships. BRW explodes three myths commonly espoused by marketers with research into 7,000 consumers:
MYTH #1: MOST CONSUMERS WANT TO HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH YOUR BRAND.
Not everyone wants a relationship with a brand they suggest that, in fact, 77% save that honour for friends and family.
MYTH #2: INTERACTIONS BUILD RELATIONSHIPS.
Nope, shared values build relationships and that is built by clear communication of purpose that smacks of authenticity, not hype.
MYTH #3: THE MORE INTERACTION THE BETTER.
‘Fraid not, there is no demonstrable correlation between interactions and propensity to repurchase.
It makes an interesting wake up call.
In April this year, the UK Government launched a new consumer empowerment strategy “designed to encourage businesses to release their customer data back to them so that consumers can use this data for their own purposes.”
The Government has boasted that the ‘midata’ project will “turn the existing approach towards consumers on its head (with) a shift away from a world in which certain businesses tightly control the information they hold about consumers, towards one in which individuals along or in groups, can use their data or feedback for their own or mutual benefit“.
Information sharing as opposed to data access or the archaic concept of customer data ownership is put in context by Alan Mitchell, strategy director of market analyst Ctrl-Shift and a member of the Midata Project Board:
“firstly it is mindset – there is another way of thinking about the whole area of customer data – and also process.“
“The trust element is really important and that works across terms and conditions, privacy policies, actual data policies, data management policies, customer training, staff training, staff incentives, and so on. So it is actually quite a good programme of change across a number of areas – the trust, the mechanisms, and the value. And that is why we are saying it really is an evolution, but it is happening already.”
The Ctrl-Shift publication The new personal data landscape, “demonstrates that the trend towards individuals managing their own data is mostly happening beyond the radar of organisations’ existing concerns but is nevertheless changing the environment in which they operate, including customer behaviours and expectations.”
Are algorithms editing our life and our choices? Kevin Slavin thinks so and presents a worrying picture in How algorithms shape our world (above).
You will be aware that there is no standard Google. Even if not logged in, Google takes into account 57 individual data points about YOU before serving you the results you searched for.
Algorithms are used to predict preferences or taste based on behaviour and recommend options. Do we risk saying goodbye to serendipity and innovation?
It is worrying though that a recent study at Columbia University found that a reliance on search engines for answers is actually changing the way humans think.
“Since the advent of search engines, we are reorganising the way we remember things. Our brains rely on the internet for memory in much the same way they rely on the memory of a friend, family member or co-worker,” said report author Betsy Sparrow.
Also exploring this subject, Eli Pariser warns us to Beware online “filter bubbles”.
The same stuff again and again is not satisfying, Pariser suggests we get trapped in a “Filter Bubble”. He warns that personalised search might be narrowing our worldview. A Filter Bubble is your own personal universe online, but the risk is that you don’t decide what is in it and you don’t see what is excluded or edited out
We rely less and less on our own critical faculties and word of mouth and more on what Mr Slavin calls the “physics of culture”. Pariser uses the analogy that algorithms are delivering the lowest common denominator – junk food, rather than a balanced diet. Search results and recommendations should not just keyed to relevance, but should expand a person’s horizon. He suggests five equally important weighting criteria:
- other points of view
Hmmmmmm, sounds like a good premise for audience development in the arts to me.
Slavin moots a concept “the physics of culture” and discussed the recommendations of Netflix which account for 60% of films rented. Netflix has used a variety of agorithms to recommend films, Cinematch, Gravity and now the ominous sounding Pragmatic Chaos.
Just as we need a balanced diet of food, we similarly benefit and grow from a healthy balanced diet of politics and culture. We need in effect a benevolent editor and Pariser suggests journalistic ethics encouraged this in the newspaper industry a century ago. Although it sounds like those ethics need to be revisited now Mr Murdoch.
katerpiddah blogged on No Nonprofit Spam which has this message for nonprofits “Your mission is noble, and your intentions are honorable. But if you subscribed us to your organization’s bulk email list without our permission, then you are sending us spam“
The blogger relegated ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) to their Hall of Shame for selling their details to other nonprofits to badger them for donations.
“RT @deborah909: So, have any of you ever traced back your junk mail to the nonprofit that originally sold your address? http://ow.ly/4zRLB #nononprofitspam“