Privacy: A "Boomer" Concept Soon Outdated?

Does “Big Data” threaten personal privacy?

That’s the question a European reporter asked me recently, following a presentation I made on “extreme trust,” or proactive trustworthiness. And, given the increasing pervasiveness of cameras today, privacy is also the cover-page topic of the November 16 issue of The Economist.

The media wring its hands over the issue, but personally, I think Mark Zuckerberg might be on to something when he predicts that soon privacy will no longer be a "social norm."

Obviously, different people have different views about privacy, but there’s also a distinct and overtly obvious age gradient to it. The older you are, in general, the more likely it is you’ll be worried about your personal privacy. Baby Boomers seem to be all aflutter over the issue, but for most of us in the Millennial generation, privacy protection is practically a non-issue. Just try to start a conversation with a 20-something about how “scared” they are of having their privacy violated. You'll likely get a “WTF?” look, but not much more. (And yes, I consider myself a mental-age Millennial, even if my chronological age disqualifies me.)

More important than a company having personal information about you is what they do with it. Increasingly, transacting in any sphere requires the exchange of digital data – personal information that is used to make a product or service more relevant, and to save the consumer from having to re-input information over and over again. But this data, like any other data, can be stored, analyzed, exploited and re-used, virtually forever.

This is certainly one reason people are demanding more and more trust from the vendors and others they deal with. One way I illustrate proactive trustworthiness, in my presentations, is by pointing out that Amazon will remind me that I already bought a book I am about to purchase, before I make the mistake of ordering it again. And if I can trust Amazon to watch out for my interests proactively like this, then why would I be worried that they’re going to somehow pull a “Big Brother” with my information? Does not compute. On the other hand, if I didn’t trust them, then I’d only expose myself to the minimum possible extent. Why on earth would anyone deal with a business they can’t trust?

The truth is, the convenience of enjoying a frictionless customer experience is extremely compelling for all of us, but even more so for those younger types who are texting, Facebooking, Pinteresting and WhatsApp-ing more than everyone else. They have no time at all for friction, so if a trustable firm like Amazon is proactively watching out for their interests, even to the point of making sure they get a refund they’re entitled to without their even having to ask for it, then they’re in favor of it. The fact that I can trust Amazon to watch out for my interests proactively is one of the reasons I love the company.

But think about what I just said, because I might as well have told you that I “love” a line of computer code – after all, it’s a computer program giving me that reminder, not a person. There’s no PERSON at Amazon scanning through my book purchases, or checking to see which videos I bought or how they streamed. It would almost certainly be a gross violation of Amazon’s internal employee policy to browse through the individual shopping habits of particular customers, in the same way it’s a violation of policy for a call center rep to write your credit card information after down on paper when they take a call from you, or for a waitress to make photocopies of the credit card slips she processes at the cash register.

Doesn’t mean things like this never happen, but they don’t happen often, and it’s NOT an official company strategy. How could it be? We’d all know about it on Twitter already! So if you’re worried that Amazon “knows” what products you’ve ordered, what are you really saying – that some database somewhere “knows” this? News flash: Databases are inanimate; they don’t know anything, and they have no intentions, good or bad.

That having been said, I still think it’s a good idea to practice hygienic data habits, just to avoid the possibility of identity theft and fraud. And even some Millennials do worry about their personal privacy, despite their peers' equanimity on the subject.

Some new technologies are now becoming available to help. Privowny, for instance, will generate a one-time-only email address for you to use when logging in to a new vendor’s system, and also provides a control bar for your Web browser that reports how many cookies are being placed on your computer by the web site you’re visiting. (Full disclosure: I'm on Privowny's Board of Advisors.)

Of course, governments will continue to dabble with laws and regulations designed to help us protect our privacy, but as well intended as these are, they just aren’t likely to be as effective as private solutions designed by entrepreneurs who must satisfy some genuine consumer need in order to remain in business. In addition, regulations always create economic friction, and the collateral damage they cause can sometimes surpass the benefits (think Sarbanes-Oxley or Dodd-Frank, for instance).

So call me an optimist (guilty as charged), but I think privacy abuses will be disciplined more and more efficiently by a free market. As we all continue to become more interconnected, bad behavior is made public more quickly, whether you’re talking about the Arab Spring or a United Breaks Guitars YouTube video.

And why on earth would people continue to tolerate either a company or a government they don't trust?