Allstate’s Senior Vice President of Public Relations Marci Kaminsky opened the floor at the Newseum’s Knight Conference Center for a discussion on “Transparency in the New Economy” by reassuring the audience that the talk was planned in advance of the recent privacy debacles concerning the IRS and the NSA. The irony of the lecture’s scheduling serves as a reminder that the issue of privacy in a technology-driven world, although more or less physically intangible, gains momentum and yields real repercussions for Americans every day.
In a capstone to illustrate the growing importance of the issue of privacy, the headlining debut of Heartland Monitor’s 17th quarterly poll disclosed a prevailing discomfort among Americans about information sharing, as well as the lag time in innovation between increasingly “smarter” technology and adequately stringent privacy measures. In presenting the data, Edward Reilly, global CEO of Strategic Communications at FTI Consulting, highlighted a key finding of a “negative gut reaction to big data” among 1000 respondents surveyed between May 29th and June 2nd of 2013—just 4 days before the controversial release of Edward Snowden’s report on the government’s PRISM program in The Washington Post and the Guardian.
A “Toolbox” for Data Control
Before Reilly presented the headline polling data, Ronald Brownstein, Editorial Director at Atlantic Media, facilitated two one-on-one interviews with the Honorable Jon Leibowitz, Former Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, and Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). Brown elicited their perspectives on privacy from two ends of the debate: that of those who tackle privacy law-breakers in the FTC, and that of those who struggle to initially create those laws in Congress.
Leibowitz focused on the need for companies to begin designing products that give consumers more control over their information from the start, citing Microsoft and Mozilla as two actors on the frontier of a new “competition in privacy” and touting browsers with a default do-not-track setting. Upon being asked how organizations and institutions in the world of digital media can most effectively maintain customer bases amidst dropping levels of confidence and increasing sensitivity to information sharing, Leibowitz encouraged incorporation of this new privacy-by-design as a top priority. For the former FTC Chairman, the commercial sector has more to worry about in this realm than the government sector, an observation later supported by the Heartland Monitor’s poll data.
Representative Blackburn spoke from a different end of the spectrum, presenting her solution to concerns through a Secure IT Act, which supports added layers of federal security rather than company-based reform. Straying from Leibowitz’s critique of the middleman institutional design, she laid responsibility instead at the feet of consumers and government actors to not only make responsible decisions, but also to create meaningful legislation to protect information from the outside in. Blackburn continually emphasized the importance of protecting the “virtual you” in the digital world with what she called her “toolbox” for data control and privacy, encouraging the public to understand their rights and autonomy in forming relationships and sharing information with certain organizations, online or not. Blackburn made an important point that we as individuals have the power to make choices about whom we form relationships or share information with, and to remember these mindful choices when our information shows up somewhere we may not have intended it to.
Before PRSIM Revelations, Internet Monitoring Lowest Concern
After hearing from Leibowitz and Blackburn on prescriptions for maladies of today’s technology-privacy relations, Edward Reilly reviewed the major points from the Heartland Monitor’s Poll XVII. Reilly reported findings of mostly negative reactions to information collection, and major concern with the amount and type of information used. Survey questions aimed to measure whether respondents felt a positive or negative impact from “Big Data”; whether they felt comfortable or concerned regarding collection of personal information; and their levels of trust in different institutions and organizations. Throughout all categories. older generations exhibited more pronounced concern.
Considering the explosive response to recent revelations on the government’s PRISM program, the data interestingly showed sparing concern among respondents with regard to phone calls, e-mail, and internet use—respondents ranked this their fourth concern. Information concerning children was ranked third; personal financial information second; and home address and social security number ranked as top most concerning in regard to privacy. If Americans were relatively unconcerned about collection of information shared online mere days before PRISM became common knowledge, is our response to revelations about the program now warranted or naïve?
When asked about trust in organizations and their activity in collection and use of data, respondents displayed trust in employers, law enforcement, and healthcare providers—those institutions which provide “direct services”. Least trusted were media outlets and social media platforms, while financial institutions, health insurance companies, cell phone providers. and the government were trusted but also perceived as most active in collection and use of personal data. The IRS notably fell just outside of this “active but trusted” category.
Given the data, it is reasonable to assess that the country has a solid sense of who has access to our information and when it is being used. There are differences in level of concern about these activities among different generations, but most everyone agrees that we lack control over them. We are well aware of our own vulnerability to be “collected on” when we are online, but we are ambivalent on whether or not the added ease of life is worth a breach of what Marcia Kaminsky called our “fundamental right” to privacy. The survey’s particular question on this ease-risk balance actually revealed a 47/47 percent split among Americans, with younger respondents leaning more toward the benefits and older respondents feeling more threat.
Your Data Being Used—“Somewhere, by Someone”
We know what is going on when we go online, but we do not really know if that means we should change it. Perhaps the most surprising—and maybe even reassuring—statistic of the day showed an overwhelming 79 percent of Americans believe that the recent IRS scandal is only a reflection of a “typical or ongoing practice” among various administrations on each side of the political bar. Only 16 percent really thought it was a “first time occurrence”. It seems that we have a practical tolerance for a certain level of surveillance at an organizational level, but a hypersensitivity to reports of constant collection of mass data by the government through consumer services like Verizon and Google. Perhaps it is the idea of the behavior that scares us more.
We have though, for the most part, already objectively come to understand that privacy can never truly be all-encompassing in today’s reality. Whatever the motive, our information is being used “somewhere, by someone”—and we are partially complicit. The question now rests in our wherewithal to take some responsibility for what we have already put out into the public domain, and whether or not the government will choose balanced parameters and standards for accountability.
Photo: Free Press Pics (cc).
a global affairs media network
All Along the Watchtower: Our Data is Public, Should We Get Over It?
July 18, 2013
Allstate’s Senior Vice President of Public Relations Marci Kaminsky opened the floor at the Newseum’s Knight Conference Center for a discussion on “Transparency in the New Economy” by reassuring the audience that the talk was planned in advance of the recent privacy debacles concerning the IRS and the NSA. The irony of the lecture’s scheduling serves as a reminder that the issue of privacy in a technology-driven world, although more or less physically intangible, gains momentum and yields real repercussions for Americans every day.
In a capstone to illustrate the growing importance of the issue of privacy, the headlining debut of Heartland Monitor’s 17th quarterly poll disclosed a prevailing discomfort among Americans about information sharing, as well as the lag time in innovation between increasingly “smarter” technology and adequately stringent privacy measures. In presenting the data, Edward Reilly, global CEO of Strategic Communications at FTI Consulting, highlighted a key finding of a “negative gut reaction to big data” among 1000 respondents surveyed between May 29th and June 2nd of 2013—just 4 days before the controversial release of Edward Snowden’s report on the government’s PRISM program in The Washington Post and the Guardian.
A “Toolbox” for Data Control
Before Reilly presented the headline polling data, Ronald Brownstein, Editorial Director at Atlantic Media, facilitated two one-on-one interviews with the Honorable Jon Leibowitz, Former Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, and Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). Brown elicited their perspectives on privacy from two ends of the debate: that of those who tackle privacy law-breakers in the FTC, and that of those who struggle to initially create those laws in Congress.
Leibowitz focused on the need for companies to begin designing products that give consumers more control over their information from the start, citing Microsoft and Mozilla as two actors on the frontier of a new “competition in privacy” and touting browsers with a default do-not-track setting. Upon being asked how organizations and institutions in the world of digital media can most effectively maintain customer bases amidst dropping levels of confidence and increasing sensitivity to information sharing, Leibowitz encouraged incorporation of this new privacy-by-design as a top priority. For the former FTC Chairman, the commercial sector has more to worry about in this realm than the government sector, an observation later supported by the Heartland Monitor’s poll data.
Representative Blackburn spoke from a different end of the spectrum, presenting her solution to concerns through a Secure IT Act, which supports added layers of federal security rather than company-based reform. Straying from Leibowitz’s critique of the middleman institutional design, she laid responsibility instead at the feet of consumers and government actors to not only make responsible decisions, but also to create meaningful legislation to protect information from the outside in. Blackburn continually emphasized the importance of protecting the “virtual you” in the digital world with what she called her “toolbox” for data control and privacy, encouraging the public to understand their rights and autonomy in forming relationships and sharing information with certain organizations, online or not. Blackburn made an important point that we as individuals have the power to make choices about whom we form relationships or share information with, and to remember these mindful choices when our information shows up somewhere we may not have intended it to.
Before PRSIM Revelations, Internet Monitoring Lowest Concern
After hearing from Leibowitz and Blackburn on prescriptions for maladies of today’s technology-privacy relations, Edward Reilly reviewed the major points from the Heartland Monitor’s Poll XVII. Reilly reported findings of mostly negative reactions to information collection, and major concern with the amount and type of information used. Survey questions aimed to measure whether respondents felt a positive or negative impact from “Big Data”; whether they felt comfortable or concerned regarding collection of personal information; and their levels of trust in different institutions and organizations. Throughout all categories. older generations exhibited more pronounced concern.
Considering the explosive response to recent revelations on the government’s PRISM program, the data interestingly showed sparing concern among respondents with regard to phone calls, e-mail, and internet use—respondents ranked this their fourth concern. Information concerning children was ranked third; personal financial information second; and home address and social security number ranked as top most concerning in regard to privacy. If Americans were relatively unconcerned about collection of information shared online mere days before PRISM became common knowledge, is our response to revelations about the program now warranted or naïve?
When asked about trust in organizations and their activity in collection and use of data, respondents displayed trust in employers, law enforcement, and healthcare providers—those institutions which provide “direct services”. Least trusted were media outlets and social media platforms, while financial institutions, health insurance companies, cell phone providers. and the government were trusted but also perceived as most active in collection and use of personal data. The IRS notably fell just outside of this “active but trusted” category.
Given the data, it is reasonable to assess that the country has a solid sense of who has access to our information and when it is being used. There are differences in level of concern about these activities among different generations, but most everyone agrees that we lack control over them. We are well aware of our own vulnerability to be “collected on” when we are online, but we are ambivalent on whether or not the added ease of life is worth a breach of what Marcia Kaminsky called our “fundamental right” to privacy. The survey’s particular question on this ease-risk balance actually revealed a 47/47 percent split among Americans, with younger respondents leaning more toward the benefits and older respondents feeling more threat.
Your Data Being Used—“Somewhere, by Someone”
We know what is going on when we go online, but we do not really know if that means we should change it. Perhaps the most surprising—and maybe even reassuring—statistic of the day showed an overwhelming 79 percent of Americans believe that the recent IRS scandal is only a reflection of a “typical or ongoing practice” among various administrations on each side of the political bar. Only 16 percent really thought it was a “first time occurrence”. It seems that we have a practical tolerance for a certain level of surveillance at an organizational level, but a hypersensitivity to reports of constant collection of mass data by the government through consumer services like Verizon and Google. Perhaps it is the idea of the behavior that scares us more.
We have though, for the most part, already objectively come to understand that privacy can never truly be all-encompassing in today’s reality. Whatever the motive, our information is being used “somewhere, by someone”—and we are partially complicit. The question now rests in our wherewithal to take some responsibility for what we have already put out into the public domain, and whether or not the government will choose balanced parameters and standards for accountability.
Photo: Free Press Pics (cc).
