The debate between privacy and security
David Strom
I write and produce compelling content that helps enterprise tech managers make better and more effective purchase decisions.
It seems as if we are headed for a showdown between privacy and security. I don’t think I have seen a time where there has been more conflict, and more acrimony, than the present day. Let’s take a look at a few examples.
Earlier this month, the UK’s Telegraph newspaper ran a story that reported the BBC will send out specialized vans to determine if its customers are illegally accessing TV streams without paying a special license to do so. The story was later repudiated by The Register, but not after some sturm und drang across various social media and the BBC made it clear that it wasn’t scooping up traffic on home Wifi networks. That story reminded me of a Google snafu. Between 2007 and 2010, Google Street View cars tapped into the browsing histories, text messages and personal emails of people on unsecured WiFi networks. Street view cars haven’t gotten much love since then. Earlier this summer, an Oakland man was arrested near Google’s Mountain View HQ. He later admitted to bombing other Street View cars earlier this year. He said he did this because he thought Google was watching him, and “that made him upset.” Street View does capture some wacky stuff, and I will leave it to you to dig that up.
But Google isn’t the only place where you can invade someone’s privacy. Take the site Ready or Not. It was developed by UC Berkeley researchers and has an app that can track your physical movements thanks to your phone’s GPS and social media accounts that have location services enabled. You just type in a Twitter ID and you can bring up a map showing where that person has been lately. This is a lesson to turn off those services if you don’t need them: but the problem is many of our apps do require them, so you are left with annoying messages to turn them back on.
Then there was a mother in Houston, Texas who was horrified to learn hackers had compromised her home's security camera system and put up a live feed of her two daughters' bedroom online. It turns out one of her daughters accidentally opened up the virtual the door to a group of hackers when she decided to play Minecraft on an unprotected server. It was easy enough for the attackers to identify the IP address of the daughter's iPad. From there, they made their way to the router and the connected home's security cameras.
Sometimes the tradeoffs between privacy and security can be a benefit for us. Progressive Insurance sells several billion dollars’ worth of auto insurance over the past several years. Customers agree to place a monitoring device called a Snapshot (pictured) in their cars in exchange for lower premiums. The device beeps when you are speeding or braking hard, and if you are driving after midnight.
How about this scarf that can be used to hide your face and other features when you are out on the town and don’t want some flash-wielding paparazzi taking your picture? Its surface and pattern is specially designed to foil the camera’s exposure sensors.
And then several years ago at the royal wedding of Prince William, British police arrested more than 50 protestors. What made this significant was that many of them were arrested before they actually did any acts of civil disobedience, recalling the pre-crime plot lines of the movie and Phil Dick story “Minority Report.” How did the cops locate these miscreants? Using social media posts, of course.
These are just a few examples of where the security/privacy debate is headed. I don’t have any ready answers for how this all going to shake out, but it certainly is going to make for additional conflicts as we struggle with finding the right balance.
President at Iron Horse and Owner, Iron Horse
8 年People have to give up privacy (or liberty) for some sort of advantage. They will let themselves be photographed so they can legally drive a car, for example. They'll give you their e mail address for $1 off. The problem is when permission is either not expressly given or unremembered. Then people feel it changes from an advantage to a disadvantage. In the modern world, you need to give up privacy to operate. Responsible people and companies care about your privacy. Criminals, malcontents, and the just plain lazy do not. There is no panacea and minimizing your digital footprint may not be a real option. And, there is frankly a *lot* of money to be made invading other people's privacy, especially when it comes to financial matters. Navigating the Internet and modern society is dangerous, but we aren't going back to using horses. So....the real solution is to practice Internet Safety and deal with those who think it is important, realizing that bad things will eventually happen to good people like you. No safety is perfect.
EVP Interoperability | Personal Data Economy Expert
8 年David, Great perspective on what is sometimes referred to as the creepy marketing surveillance industry. This new awareness level will certainly make this year's PIE Personal Information Economy conference all the more exciting! Thanks for spreading the concerns many of us have in this news.
Proven Enabler of Effective Content-Powered Marketing
8 年I believe it was more than two decades ago when I first heard a presenter at an IT conference -- might it have been the always-insightful Esther Dyson? -- remind the audience that "privacy us fungible." We are all part of a rapidly moving, ever-evolving dynamic that involves the trading of actual and/or perceived privacy for some actual and/or perceived benefit. What's needed is awareness of this dynamic by all involved, and the ability to make fully informed decisions. Difficult to navigate, but fascinating to experience. Thanks for the great post, David -- looking forward to more of your insightful observations on this important subject.
Marketing Communications Director
8 年I think one of the most important differences between what is appropriate and what isn't is the user's ability to make an informed decision. Awesome scarf by the way!!