First it is important to discover whether there is an empirical correlation between personal revelation and altruism. Would you divulge your granular energy consumption habits if that data could reduce inefficiences, thereby reducing carbon emissions? Would you share your personal health records - within logic and reason - if that data could provide scientists with the opportunity to make significant correlations, which were previously impossible?
These are a few of the questions that I find interesting. Hopefully SSHRC finds them equally as interesting.
If we provide further access to our intimate habits, beit energy consumption etc.., then one must believe that this information will be used for the greater good. Is it palatable that personal information would not be used to contribute further to grow business and profits? There may be a bigger sociological issue at work here given our capitalist state. My hypothesis would be that people have become so acclimatized to having their personal information (income, credit card habits, charitable donations made, etc...)exploited for marketing purposes (even Facebook has started 'selling' based on interests expressed) that at this point scepticism would prevent them from wanting to divulge more for the greater good. It may just be too ‘unbelievable’. I'd love to see this fleshed out further, to see if there is a research method that could account for the society bias and think your idea is a refreshing change from all the negativity in the media associated with privacy and information access. Suzanne
ReplyDeleteSuzanne, you used the phrase "exploited for marketing purposes" when referring to the use of personal information. To continue this discussion a little further, I'm wondering if the characterization of these uses of personal information as exploitation might be questioned.
ReplyDeleteFacebook's business model is founded upon the exchange of individual personal information for access to their software. There is a tacit agreement when one registers for services such as Facebook that this exchange is taking place (it's actually an explicit agreement based on acceptance of the service's Terms of Use, but, in spite of the fact that nobody reads these agreements, I believe that for most people there is a tacit agreement to this exchange). The question then is, if this exchange of information for service is consensual can it still be characterized as exploitation? The fact that so many people enter into this agreement suggests to me that the majority aren't skeptical about divulging their personal information -- they do so, consciously, on a daily basis.
To me this suggests that the possibility of altruistic motives in the exchange of personal information is certainly a possibility, and that generally people are willing to divulge this information if they perceive value in the exchange.
The recent debate over the long-form census seems relevant here Mike: as I understand it the Conservatives are assuming that Canadians will act altruistically by continuing to give their personal information to the census even after the existing penalties for not doing so are lifted. What do you think?
Brian Harding
[I can already see that it's going to be a challenge to keep these posts under the maximum limit]
I'm not sure I would classify the voluntary exchange of personal information as having altruistic motive behind it, save for a few examples. Even then, there is usually some intangible benefit motivating the exchange. Something as simple as sharing your hydro consumption (for the supposed purpose of enabling the collective to reduce use) only catches on when users see a financial incentive. In the case of Toronto Hydro, this means time-of-use savings. I'm a patient of the University Health Network, and I recently got an email invite to build a personal health profile that could be accessed by my doctor (and other health care professionals). Balking first at the resulting privacy issues, I then asked myself what the benefit to me would be, and selfishly concluded that I could waste less time at the doctor's office if I was able to update them in advance of personal health issues.
ReplyDeleteWe share so much personal information every day, whether we know it or not, that I think we've become blind to the consequences. All of us are using Google accounts, myself included. Probably few of us are aware that Google entered into a partnership with the NSA in February of this year, and that the NSA is building a new $2 billion facility in the Utah desert for the purpose of spying on, and then storing, global communication. Google expressly assures us that they will not share users' communication data with the NSA - their mandate is "Don't Be Evil" after all - but why do we implicitly trust Google, or Facebook, or any other host? Where does this assumption come from that hosts have our interests at heart when they are driven by profit?
There is a lot of altruistic information sharing happening already... look at sites like Lifehacker or Instructables. Personally, I see little benefit to people volunteering private information and opening up their data when they can exchange information, for the public good, anonymously. In the end, hosts are subject to security problems (Google's reasons for entering into partnership with the NSA ostensibly have to do with preventing future Chinese hacks), government incursions (Patriot Act), and are governed in ways many users would find questionable (there are plenty of interesting profiles of Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg's business practices available online).
I think Mike is on to something very interesting - whether there is an empirical correlation between revelation and altruism - but I'd be cautious that much of the data would be cloudy without users understanding the "full" nature and consequences of personal information in a format that can always be stored and recovered.
I appreciate all of your comments. Gbby, your point about anonymizing data is an interesting one and one which many people are discussing. However, it's important to recognize the inherent identification potential regardless of explicit personal identification via some unique primary key. For example, predictive analytics has the potential to link users to anonymous accounts. This is especially true without the use of proxy servers. In any case your point is very important. There is however no such thing as absolute security as you probably know. I worry that in the end we don't have a choice in the end.
ReplyDeleteBrian, I think your example of the long-form census is a great one. The idea of personal revelation as an altruistic or charitable act has enormous potential when you begin to think about it. I think I need to begin thinking about semantics. Maybe altruism isn't the word I'm looking form. Maybe "charitable act" is more important.
Suzanne, I think you brought up many good points. I have a question for you though. To what degree is it a negative phenomena for private enterprise to exploit personal information? When they annoy you? When they compromise your information and your identity gets stolen? There are many examples, but in any case, I think it's important to find a balance between potential negative implications and value.