The Internet has become a prison. A prison in which the warden can see all of the prisoners, but none of the prisoners can see each other, or the warden. Because what Silicon Valley knows how to do best is collect user data without notifying the user it’s doing so, and for what purpose, and then sell it for profit. But it shouldn’t be that way, and it doesn’t have to be.
That’s according to Michael Fertik, founder and CEO of Reputation.com, speaking in San Francisco’s sun-cloaked Moscone Center—somewhat appropriately located directly across from a Target store, as one RSA Conference attendee tweeted—where information security professionals packed into a conference room to engage with expert panelists at an IAPP privacy training session on the myriad threats to privacy facing anyone who touches data today.
It’s an incredibly relevant time to have such a conversation, Fertik said, because we’re in a “Michelangelo” moment in privacy. He was referring to the 1991 computer virus phenomenon that sent waves of panic across the infosec world and eventually hit even mainstream media, creating drama that perhaps outstripped the virus’ impact, but set in motion an eventual ecosystem of antivirus software that proliferated and even policies that began to bolster the shift.
Fast-forward to 2014 and, no matter what one’s politics, it’s hard to deny the worldwide hype surrounding privacy and surveillance, thanks to Edward Snowden. “We are finally getting awareness to the general public,” Fertik said.
However, while the masses are finally getting up-to-speed on data collection and how the Internet actually works, one of the great remaining myths of the Internet is that “it’s about you,” Fertik said. “It’s not. You are not the subject or the verb in this sentence; you are the object.”
But that can change, and infosec professionals can play a key role, Fertik said. And maybe in this scenario, as in the case of the rise of antivirus software of the 90s, we’ve landed a net positive. After all, innovative technology is rising to the occasion; just look at the number of start-ups responding to the public disdain over government spying: Silent Circle and Snapchat as alternatives to traditional e-mail and photo-messaging, for example.
Or perhaps, even better, the answer may lie in a shift on behalf of companies already up-and-running to include users on decisions involving monetizing data.
Panelist Jules Polonetsky, CIPP/US, co-founder of the Future of Privacy Forum, said the ambiguity lies in drawing lines in the sand. Where are the boundaries when it comes to user expectations?
It’s hard to say.
“The majority [of users are] not looking for privacy,” Polonetsky said. “They’re looking to not get screwed. They are not even thinking of it as privacy. They want to know, ‘Is there a security concern? What are you going to do with [my data]?’ … But there’s a lot of wiggle room in that middle ground for us to give people a fair deal and treat them well,” he said.
For many brands, though, it’s hard to even define what would be a fair deal to the consumer, because it’s never one-size-fits-all when it comes to privacy, said panelist Anne Toth, co-founder at Cover Media Labs and former head of privacy and policy at Google and Chief Trust Officer at Yahoo.
“Privacy is highly elastic,” Toth said. “It means different things to different people. As a business, what you’re trying to do is manage consumer expectations. Because a ‘privacy violation’ is when my expectations have been violated: ‘I thought you did this, but in fact you did that.’”
Adding to the problem is that there’s no efficient way to tell consumers exactly what your brand is doing with all of their data, and, compounding that, government is persistently asking brands for huge data troves—as we now know. But that’s nothing new, she said. Such data aggregation has been happening for a long time.
How Do Brands Establish Trust?
Attorney Stan Crosley, CIPP/US, CIPM, currently of Drinker, Biddle and Reath, agreed, adding that expectations and definitions come from consumers’ life experiences, and privacy harm is very hard to nail down as a concept.
“People understand if someone takes their wallet and walks way, that’s a tangible harm; they’ve just lost their money,” he said. “But what is really at risk if they’re on a website? So someone sends them annoying e-mails. There is opt-out,” he said of lax consumer attitudes.
All of this is to say that the current model for communicating with consumers is clearly broken, the panel agreed. Crosley noted that there’s a complete disconnect between the law and consumer expectations, and even he writes “awe-inspiring” privacy notices that never get read. “Unless my client gets sued,” he noted, which means privacy folks, in the end, are essentially writing privacy policies for the regulators, not the consumers.
“Now, how do you get to transparency?” he asked the crowd. “How do you get to helping people understand what’s being done so they can make choices that are worthwhile?”
Toth agreed that it’s complicated but said it comes down to trust. That means consumers typically make choices based on brands they’re comfortable with. But that can get tricky because the company a consumer one day makes an agreement with may not always remain the same company in the end in this day of mergers and acquisitions. She noted Facebook’s recent acquisition of WhatsApp. Did the consumer who agreed to WhatsApp’s policies know that one day that would mean they were agreeing to Facebook’s policies?
Compounding the issue, she said, is that trust relationships aren’t built in a day.
The Future? Collaboration, Innovation
So how do we solve these problems?
Polonetsky said it’s up to the IT professionals in the room and beyond.
“I’m optimistic that smart technologists are going to help design systems that users want,” he said, adding that it’s going to come down to UI-design. If technology is capable of itself driving a car or flying a plane, “we need to at least make a browser that lets me understand what’s happening with my data,” he said.
But Crosley was quick to say it’s important not to confuse “control” with data privacy.
“It’s incredibly unethical for companies to rely on you to decide what you think is the best or most harmful use of your data, when many entities have a far greater understanding of how that data can be used for good or harm,” he said. “Privacy shouldn’t just be about control.”
Toth said use-regulation is the only answer to a world where data is ubiquitous.
“We have to change our model to appreciate that. We are quickly approaching a world where we are going to have to be making some really hard choices about the benefits we want and exactly how we’re going to regulate and manage that,” she said.
To do that, infosec professionals and privacy professionals will need to get on the same page.
If you want to comment on this post, you need to login.