Skip to main content

Data in Confidence


Earlier today, I shared a CNN story detailing the reaction of major tech companies to the PRISM leak. I find it interesting that Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft have all gone a pretty long way toward asserting that they protect user privacy. There is an obvious attempt here to win (or win back) the trust of their various communities of users.

All of these companies provide a set of valuable services, and they do so at the cost of our information. Just thinking about Google, the general service they provide can be understood as information management to promote convenience. Google's various products make our information more accessible to us and more easy to share with others. Google also turns our information into action through appointment notifications, editing documents, and maintaining our contact lists. In exchange for these services, we have to provide Google with our data.

On the surface, the users are supposed to get enough convenience to offset any recoil about giving a third party a window into communications, interests, and behavior. Here, I have to admit that as much as I like to maintain a strong wall of privacy, I've found Google's services too convenient to pass up, especially when it comes to keeping a handful of devices in sync. Still, convenience loses value when the security of our information is compromised.

Continuing the focus on Google, we can see that maintaining user privacy has always been a concern. All tech companies work to maintain the security of the data they hold, and we have indication that there is not a policy of blanket compliance with government requests. With the PRISM leak, we have another vivid reminder of the vulnerability of our data, and what our information-management-service providers do to keep it safe.

What I find so interesting is that there is a clear market motive, entirely independent of ideological commitments, to establish trust. In the long run, convenience isn't enough to maintain a community of users. If that convenience incurs the cost of losing privacy, users will tend to migrate away to more secure service-providers or learn to do without. The only way for a service-provider like Google to maintain its userbase is to establish itself as a steward of user data. Acting in the interest of the user in this case means acting in the overall interests of Google.

Given that established privacy law is still catching up to email let alone Google, there is a clear policy gap with regard to this kind of data-stewardship. I think this gap could be filled with by a confidentiality relationship similar to doctor-patient or legal counsel. At present, a firm like Google can build privacy guarantees into their user policies, but those policies are not consistent and not recognized beyond their nature as contracts. Instead, there should be an understanding that data handed over to a service-provider like Google maintains a reasonable expectation of privacy, just like anything you tell your doctor.

With a recognized Data Stewardship relation, users could have an increased trust in the privacy of their information and maintain the convenience of using services like Google. The standards for this relationship can be drawn from both established confidentiality relationships, industry standards in privacy polices, and privacy practices in Europe (where privacy issues are a big deal). Users would then know what to expect in terms of privacy and how their information will be used.

As we continue to move our lives online, these issues will only become more important.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Justifications for Intellectual Property Part 1: Utilitarianism

There is no way this tutorial series would be complete without some discussion of justifications for intellectual property. While not necessarily a matter of law, some knowledge of the philosophical foundations will provide a better sense of the values at stake in intellectual property debates. Notice, for instance, that the tutorials on fair use were punctuated with appeals to values, social goods, and individual rights. Without an understanding of the moral and political framework against which the law stands, one can very easily find oneself in a stalemate, with one value pitted against another and no way of deciding which should prevail. To understand the jurisprudence around intellectual property rights, one has to have some idea of the justifying theories to which attorneys and judges appeal in their arguments and decisions. So, without further ado, let's get to the tutorial.
There are three main ways of justifying intellectual property rights: the Utilitarian theory, the Lab…

Justifications for Intellectual Property Part 2: Labor-Desert Theories

I know it's been a little while, but I want to finish this tutorial series rather than abandoning it and moving on to other topics. Of course, I would have liked to have finished it by now, but various research and teaching-related obstacles have kept me nose down in the Real rather than preparing content to be released into the internet. Nevertheless, I'm returning to routine, so I'm going to release this installment today, rather than wait for my usual MWF release schedule.
At any rate, let's pick up where we left off and talk about justifications for intellectual property rights. While the utilitarian justification discussed in the last post enjoys the status of having been enshrined in law, scholars and jurists have often brought in other property-justifying theories. Perhaps the most popular of these are Labor-Desert justifications, best exemplified by John Locke (the philosopher, not the character on Lost).
In his Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke const…

Justifications for Intellectual Property Part 3: Self-Expression Justifications

The third dominant justifying theory for intellectual property rights is often called the Self-Expression justification. Most scholars attribute it to Hegel, but it ultimately has roots in Kant. While few philosophers even addressed intellectual property, Immanuel Kant discusses the sale of pirated books in Metaphysics of Morals. Kant argues that reprinting a book after first publication is a violation of the author's right to entrust his communication to a particular publisher. Viewing books as importantly communicative, not material, in nature, Kant claims that a publisher is essentially a spokesperson, someone designated by an author to communicate his ideas to others. Reprinters interrupt this process by taking it on themselves to communicate the author's idea, without his consent. Reprinting is then akin to removing the author's control over the communication of his ideas. While Kant's argument does not get you an entire system of intellectual property, he does dr…