Re: [projectvrm] Scott Adams: Information is the Cure for Privacy

[Doc Searls < >]

On Aug 14, 2014, at 5:02 AM, Graham Reginald Hill < "> > wrote:

Hi Doc

 

I owe you and others an email or two in response. Apologies for my slow response. Presssure of work.

 

Adams' post is an unusual exploration of the privacy theme. It would make for a good polemic if a little longer and a little more cogently argued. I find it somewhat disingenuous to describe it as loony. It is certainly no more loony than some of the absurd positions taken by the privacy fundamentalists on this Forum. You know who you are.

 

Adam's suggestion that privacy is only necessary in a world that is not transparently open is an interesting philosophical argument, albeit not one I agree with. From my own perspective I am willing to trade some information about myself, preferably with a degree of control over how it is used, but only to trusted partners and only in exchange for something of value in return. Research by Boston Consulting Group (https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/information_technology_strategy_consumer_products_trust_advantage_win_big_data/),  the Direct Marketing Association (http://dma.org.uk/sites/default/files/tookit_files/data_privacy_-_what_the_consumer_really_thinks_2012.pdf), Aimia (http://www.aimia.com/content/dam/aimiawebsite/CaseStudiesWhitepapersResearch/english/Aimia_Whitepaper_FourFutures_DigitalLoyaltySurvey.pdf) and others suggests that this is a widely held perspective.

— but one contained in the current market milieu, in which the marketing side has an enormous arsenal of means for observing people, and in which being observed (and having few global controls for valving that observation) is a requirement for participation.

Privacy isn't the real issue unless you are a fundamentalist; it is the trade-off between dsclosure and value consumers get in return that we should be concerned with.

It's a huge issue, and not just with "fundamentalists." While many people may be willing to yield ("trade" is the wrong verb) personal data for marketing perks, many others (including many doing the trading) are not happy with the "deal" — in which their negotiating position is weak (basically, take-it-or-leave it) at best. 

Context: privacy is a non-issue in the physical world, because we've had many millennia to work out both the technologies (clothing, doors, windows, shutters, blinds) and the manners involved — but is an issue in the virtual world, where we've had less than two decades to work things out and in the meantime go about naked unless we employ crude prophylaxes such as ad and tracking blockers. And usage rates of those is not small. From a a PageFair report from 21 August of last year:

Based on measurements taken from hundreds of websites over 11 months, we show that up to 30% of web visitors are blocking ads, and that the number of adblocking users is growing at an astonishing 43% per year.

Even if one discounts PageFair's involvement in the advertising business, it at least indicates something. For a sense of that, here is a current version of a Google Trends search (for "adblock") from the PageFair report:

This is the market talking. There is both interest and demand here.

 I don't find the need for a high-degree of rationalisation for what you pejoratively called surveillance-based marketing.

That term may be pejorative, but it is also in the vernacular. Here is Ethan Zuckerman in The Atlantic yesterday:

The fiasco I want to talk about is the World Wide Web, specifically, the advertising-supported, “free as in beer” constellation of social networks, services and content that represents so much of the present day web industry. I’ve been thinking of this world, one I’ve worked in for over 20 years, as a fiasco since reading a lecture by Maciej Cegłowski, delivered at the Beyond Tellerrand web design conference.  Cegłowski is an important and influential programmer and an enviably talented writer. His talk is a patient explanation of how we’ve ended up with surveillance as the default, if not sole, internet business model.

Ethan ran that past me before he published it, and I pushed back on characterization of surveillance as an "internet business model." That overstates the case. (It's also the Web and not the Internet, which is a lower layer in the market stack.) Still, he's right to challenge the prevalence of that model.

A stall holder on a Saturday market carefully observes the visitors to his stall before deciding on the best pitch to sell his wares. A manager in a meeting carefully observes his colleagues before adopting the best argument to carry his collagues. And a marketer carefully gather information abdout his target audience before cobstructing the best communications to drive awareness, interest and consideration in consumers. It would be irrational not to observe your market as closely as possible before going to it. The degree to which you can observe the market is driven on the one hand by the persmission that consumers give you to observe them (which as we have seen is determined in part by what they get back in return) and on the other hand by legal restrictions.

Which are so poor as to non-exist. But, as I said above, we have come a short way so far, and have a long way to go.

BTW, I tend not to favor regulation from above, although in some cases (e.g. EU and .AU) it seems to help. Better to have standard ways for individuals to assert their own preferences, policies and terms. Our model there (with Customer Commons) is Creative Commons, which greatly improved the marketplace for digital goods by creating normative licenses rather than by reforming copyright law. We will have the same normative terms, which will be easy for sites and sellers to read, and for automated agreement mechanisms to follow. We are working with the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard on this, and I expect others (starting with the most person-friendly browser makers) to weigh in, help out, and follow on. This, I believe, is our most important work right now.

I have argued before that a minority of marketers are often stupid, short-sighted and even immoral in their behaviour (http://customerthink.com/how_stupidity_short_termism_and_immorality_have_ruined_marketing/). But that doesn't mean that the majority of marketers are. My experience working amongst the highest levels of marketer over the past 25 years is that they are almost as passionate about consumers, value exchange and privacy as you are.

I was in marketing, one way or another, from 1972 to 1998. My advertising, PR and marketing agency was one of Silicon Valley's largest and best from the mid-80s to the late 90s. So I've been there and done that. It's also one reason I'm passionate about VRM today. It was for lack of sufficient VRM (in the literal sense — ways customers and prospects can relate to the companies of the world, and for conversation in the marketplace to take place) that I got started on this work.

They are just more pragmatic about what they do about it.

That's being kind. A great deal of unfair advantage is being taken by many marketers — even the nicest ones — because the technology permits it, and there are absent or insufficient mechanisms of control on the individuals' side. If advantage was not being taken, there would not be the push-back there is today.

As per usual, "Methinks the Lady doth protest too much". But it does make for a good discussion. Feel free.

 

Best regards from Bristol, Graham

Cheers,

Doc

 

-- 
Dr. Graham Hill
">
UK +44 7564 122 633
DE +49 170 487 6192
http://twitter.com/GrahamHill
http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhill
http://www.customerthink.com/graham_hill

Partner
Optima Partners
http://www.optimapartners.co.uk

Senior Associate
Nyras Capital
http://www.nyras.co.uk

Associate
Ctrl-Shift
https://www.ctrl-shift.co.uk

 

 

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. August 2014 um 04:52 Uhr
Von: "Doc Searls" < "> >
An:  ">
Cc: "Adrian Gropper" < "> >, "ProjectVRM list" < "> >
Betreff: Re: [projectvrm] Scott Adams: Information is the Cure for Privacy

I don't think it's a guise, and it is loony, on purpose.

I think he's working out an angle for Dilbert, which is about the routine absurdities of business.

Note the high degree of rationalization required for surveillance-based advertising. What he's saying in this post isn't far from that.

Doc

On Aug 13, 2014, at 6:49 PM, "> wrote:

>
> Usually it's the well paid middle class straight white guys that diss privacy. They have no need for it. Go figure.
> But when rich white comedians like Scott Adams provide social commentary on privacy under the guise of running a joke, it's a bit sick.
> He asks people if they'd really need privacy if everyone knew everything about everybody (and, to boot, if we didn't believe in god anymore). Really? It's probably more interesting to survey people if they'd like to get to work by personal flying car.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Steve.
>
> Stephen Wilson
> Managing Director
> Lockstep Group
> Phone +61 (0)414 488 851
> http://lockstep.com.au
> Lockstep Consulting provides independent specialist advice and analysis
> on digital identity and privacy. Lockstep Technologies develops unique
> new smart ID solutions that enhance privacy and prevent identity theft.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Adrian Gropper" < "> >
> Sent: Thursday, 14 August, 2014 8:34am
> To: "Doc Searls" < "> >
> Cc: "ProjectVRM list" < "> >
> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Scott Adams: Information is the Cure for Privacy
>
> This seems loony. Privacy is primarily that which makes innovation and
> invention safer. Trying to categorize it by speculating on the various
> potential domains of innovation one by one seems to miss the point of
> innovation altogether.
>
> Adrian
>
> On Wednesday, August 13, 2014, Doc Searls < "> >
> wrote:
>
>> Meant to provoke:
>>
>> <http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/information_is_the_cure_for_privacy/>
>>
>>> My larger point is that society should not be looking for ways to
>> maintain privacy. It should be looking for ways to make privacy
>> unnecessary. We will never be free until we lose our unnecessary secrets
>> and discover we are better off without them.
>>
>> But food for thought.
>>
>> Doc
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Gropper MD
>
>