Carlos Garca

Erika Beckstrand

ENGL 2010

23 June 2017

Big Data and its Human Implications

Living today in a society that utilizes the internet for practically everything may also imply that there is

no reason to expect privacy. Many have said that privacy died with the dawn of the digital age. That privacy is

less important today than it was before and that even if we have, already, given privacy up the benefits are worth

it. While it is true that the technology that we have created can result in important innovation, it is not a

guarantee that we are on track to harness it responsibly.

Few times, we consider the human implications of the development of digital technology. Rick Smolan,

an avid advocate for the proper consideration of big data implications has noted, Every time there's a new tool,

whether it's Internet or cell phones or anything else, all these things can be used for good or evil. Technology is

neutral; it depends on how it's used (Smolan). As Smolan points out it is ultimately us humans who decide how

we use technology. It is unreasonable to point at phones as the direct cause of phone scams and it is also

unreasonable to think that big data is responsible for the decisions we make with massive amounts of

information on individuals. The Internet and big data will have, in the future, a formidable sway in how we

understand humanity and the scope of the effect that our actions may have in society at every level.

The control we exert in technological advances implies that we can shape big data with ethical and

humane considerations. It is necessary that we decide what safeguards we need to put in place to protect

individuals and the public because we live in a world where data influences people. Abstract pieces of

information are used every day to decide events that shape peoples lives. Data, or information if you will, is

much more than simply ones and zeros. Information is a representation of reality and it has the capacity to
 2

convey many crucial characteristics of the human experience of an individual. When individual pieces of

information are combined with others they have the potential to identify, describe and affect humans.

If presented only with 195457 N, 75823 W those coordinates might not mean much. On the other

hand, if, for example, we discovered that those coordinates represent the current and exact location of the Twitter

account @michaelbay, one could suggest that maybe Michael Bay has finally been imprisoned in Guantanamo

Bay for his direction of the Transformers movies. For the purposes of this example it only takes two points of

data to formulate a conjecture about the life of an individual. It is when this kind of aggregation happens that

data, by itself, is able to identify us and that becomes dangerous in the world in which we live. It is not far

fetched to think that consulting the physical presence of an individuals phone at the time of a crime might be

admissible evidence that not only the individual in question was present at the crime scene but also that he or she

is responsible for the crime.

Currently there is little done to consider the humanity inherent in the users of digital services. There are

plenty of stories about how companies violate peoples privacy. For example, if you emailed your veterinarian

about the death of your beloved pet it is likely that you will begin seeing ads related to pet care and veterinarian

services. According to Tania Lombrozo, an associate professor of psychology at the University of California,

Berkley, The problem is this: The data-mining tools that glean our interests and choose our ads don't fit into the

complex flow of information we've spent our lives charting and mastering. We don't have a map that tells us how

a particular bit of information made it from Point A to Point B, nor the social context that gives us insight into

why (Lombrozo). In her argument, Lombrozo, suggests that, as humans, we mentally create the social structure

that we know information will follow, but the structure of how our information propagates through advertisers

and data collectors remains obscured to us. These tendencies to disregard the human side of the interaction can

be reduced or managed better if the people it describes plays an active role in how the information is gathered,

how it is processed and for which purposes it can be obtained.

 3

The structure that guides the flow of data on the internet does not need to be obscured from the eyes of

the humans interacting with data services. According to Dr. Richard Mortier, a privacy researcher from

Cambridge University, there are three principal characteristics that Human-Data interactions should allow to

grant users dignity and control. Namely, they are legibility, agency and negotiability. (Mortier) These

interactions need to consider the user as an equal to the service and these characteristics mentioned by Dr.

Mortier would guarantee that these interactions happen in a plainly leveled field for both the user and the data

collecting entity.

Legibility defines the ability of the users to understand what information is collected and what we are

allowing the company to do with it. Often companies tend to think that making their privacy practices available

is enough, and although they have met the law requirements, it is not enough for the average user. The policies

need to be legible and understandable to the user. Thus, attempts to inform the user should, reasonably, be

pursued rather than releasing information about privacy in a dark corner of a rarely read document.

Agency establishes the power of the user in actively manage the data they are sharing. This aspect

requires that the user be able to provide, thanks to legibility, informed consent. Additionally, a user should be

able to correct mistakes that have been introduced through the inference of data already collected. For example,

if there is a store where a person buys only vegetables because they are fresher there, that particular store would

be inclined to think that this individual is a passionate vegan. On the other hand, if the same person buys only

meat at a different store because it is more convenient location for him or she, that other store, could infer that

this person is a dedicated carnivore. Each store only has a limited amount of information that, by itself, is not

enough to make the inferences they do make about a person. Regardless of this inevitable uncertainty, companies

make inferences about us every day without us being able to correct what they have asserted about us.

Algorithms that process our information are more accurate than ever but that does not mean they are perfect.

Only humans are capable of completely correcting those errors, as minimal as they might seem. Jamie Bartlett,

journalist for The Telegraph, indicates that in a survey of 1,464 UK consumers, Nine out of ten consumers
 4

believe that they should be able to control what information organizations collect about me and what they use

this information for (Bartlett, 25). Even though this is a legitimate concern by the public, agency is not

achievable because of mainly two problems. One is that companies do not consider the user as the owner of the

information, and thus, wont allow the user to correct the information and second, we dont have the prerequisite

of legibility as a foundation for agency or in other words, users are unaware that information about them is being

collected.

Lastly, negotiability refers to the ongoing engagement of the user in the process of creating, capturing,

sharing, and analyzing the data that describes them. The interests and opinions of people change with time but

very few times do companies allow for users to represent those changes in interest. This lack of the ability to

correct information results in a disadvantage for the user. In the words of Mortier,

Although we agree that it may well be possible to enable an ecosystem using economic value models for

utilisation of personal data and marketplaces. We believe that power in the system isas of 2016

disproportionately in favour of the data aggregators that act as brokers and mediators for users, causing

the apparent downward trajectory of economic value in the information age. (Mortier)

With systems that implement negotiability a user would have the ability to change their mind and

renegotiate the terms that they have accepted because their perspective or themselves has changed. Humans after

all are changing entities that are hard to describe purely as information.

Once these three requirements have been met, users will enjoy of a finer, and informed, control of their

privacy. It is true that there are technical difficulties that will need to be solved, the prospect of an informed and

manageable state of privacy is very desirable in modern society. According to Glenn Greenwald, privacy

advocate and recognized journalist, There's a reason why privacy is so craved universally and instinctively. It

isn't just a reflexive movement like breathing air or drinking water. The reason is that when we're in a state

where we can be monitored, where we can be watched, our behavior changes dramatically. The range of

behavioral options that we consider when we think we're being watched severely reduce (Greenwald). If we do
 5

not control the parameters and statutes that regulate how this sharing and capturing of data works, we are

yielding the privacy that we need to act freely. Additionally, we surrender a side of our behavior that we are only

inclined to express to ourselves.

This loss of freedom is well represented in an example, presented by Greenwald, where he explains that

a constant state of surveillance is a direct analog to an eighteenth century architectural design denoted

Panopticon. This design involved an elevated tower amid a prison, from where a guard could at any time

observe any one of the inmates. They, of course, did not have enough resources to watch all the inmates

constantly, but the uncertainty that inmates faced, of not knowing if they were being observed, pushed all of

them to assume they were being observed anyways. Greenwald argues that, mass surveillance creates a prison

in the mind that is a much more subtle though much more effective means of fostering compliance

(Greenwald). This effect of a prison in the mind is a concern because even when companies are not actively

trying to achieve such effect, the indiscriminate collection of data does cause such a loss of freedom.

There are critics that attempt to discredit the behavioral impact of big data by dismissing it in a single

phrase if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. While it does sound like a good proposal there

are few instances where, instinctively, we would allow such a level of pervasiveness to the point where we

literally would have nothing to hide. At least some aspects of our humanity remain inherently private to us.

The same way we wouldnt allow a stranger in our bedroom, the idea that a company may, through geophysical

position and internet connection, assert that we are indeed in our bedroom by ourselves is troubling to say the

least. The other end of the phrase you have nothing to fear, although indirectly, implies that a person could live

such a trivial way that their own existence is of no interest or value to anyone. If a person was serious about not

allowing anyone to collect any data about themselves in any significant way, we might as well be describing a

person that has no interaction with any other human, or a person who doesnt exist in any meaningful way. It

seems clear that those radical points of view are unreasonable expectations of any individual in the twenty first
 6

century. One should feel free and unrestrained to explore all the depth of human curiosity without having to

sacrifice the interactions and richness that the modern world offers us.

Today, many of the worlds companies are technically capable of providing meaningful and useful

technologies. Several of these allow us to enjoy the human experience at a greater depth. We are able to talk

instantly to virtually anyone across the globe. We can share our lives with loved ones who are physically

separated from us and we can enjoy of the shared memories that these digital interactions provide.

The issue, for many, is that because companies provide these very valuable services they are entitled to

collect data without constraints and considerations, thus, regarding the data as a sole property of the company.

This sense of ownership may stem from the fact that it was their services and infrastructure that allowed the

creation and capture of the data. This conjecture is incomplete because it fails to recognize that the information

was created, in most cases, as a result of human activity. It also would be unfair to say that the user is the only

entitled of some benefit derived from their information. Because many of this services have been created by

privately own corporations, this means that a clear majority of the public use a service they did not create or help

create in any meaningful way. The investment required to develop online services is of sizeable proportions and

needs to be protected through the profit it enables. It is precisely profit that drives this kind of innovation. After

all, this data can be traded and monetized when it is analyzed and this analysis requires software and

computational resources that take time and money to develop.

The process of collecting and analyzing data in massive amounts yields ways of revenue that can be

used in order to provide financial wealth to the individual and society. This new way to obtain revenue is being

adopted more than ever. It allows creators and providers of services to obtain significant compensation from

their work without interfering much with the experience of the users, or without requiring users to pay directly

for such services. Google has pioneered much of the work in developing this revenue sources. Many of the

services they provide are increasingly valuable to all of human kind. Never have we had such a vast collection of

satellite imagery of practically the entirety of earth, or been able to trace driving instructions that considered real
 7

time transit data, these achievements exist today because private companies decided to provide this service for

free while collecting and analyzing the data that their service produces.

However, as we have discussed before the data that is produced through a service most likely will

influence people in complex ways. The internet, as a service, is no longer separated from a physical reality and

data is the fuel that powers driving change on the internet. Whatever data we create online, including data

generated and collected in our behalf, will to one degree or another affect our lives. For example, you can read

the privacy statement of the famous presentation design website called Prezi.

With respect to Private User Content, you hereby do and shall grant to Prezi (and its successors,

assigns, and third party service providers) a worldwide, non-exclusive, revocable, royalty-free, fully

paid, sublicensable, and transferable license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative

works, communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, distribute and transmit the content

SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE of providing you, and those with whom you have shared your

presentations, with the Service. (Prezi)

One could argue that by providing the service Prezi is entitled to use the generated data for their own

benefit. Moreover, that Prezi requires to have such vast grants over that data to operate. But a different point of

view suggests that while Prezi does provide a valuable service the created works are not their property and the

requested grants are so broad that it may hinder the rights of the actual creator of the content, their users.

There are solutions that can satisfy both user and data collector. Dr Mortier suggests that instead of

concerning themselves so much with collecting data, the companies could potentially provide computational

means, like a program or other software, that will analyze the data that has been collected separately for the user

and communicate the analysis for the benefit of the company. Thus, the user can be given the service intended,

the company retains the intellectual property of their software and analysis tools, and the users data is kept

private and relatively secured. Once the user has been informed, in a clear non-trivial manner, he or she could

share their data voluntarily with the companies interested in it.

 8

Human innovation and ingenuity can provide the means to allow both marvelous technological advances

and guarantee the privacy of the individuals that such advances serve. While there are many questions that need

to be answered regarding big data, it is also clear that there are profound human implications for all of us. Many

of the decisions that we make will become foundational for the freedoms that we retain.

A future, where technological advances that benefit humanity are made through data being collected

does not need to be a grim world. Similar to the oppressive and tyrannical world portrayed in the words of the

famous novel 1984, where people are prompted to say that, it [is] terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander

when you are in a public place (Orwell, 55). In fear that dissent might prove fatal to you. We can retain that

much sought freedom that privacy protects and still allow for the worlds technology to flourish and provide us

with solutions to our human problems.

Works Cited

Bartlett, Jamie. The Data Dialog. London, UK, Demos, 2012, www.demos.co.uk/files/The_Data_Dialogue.pdf.

Greenwald, Glenn. Why privacy matters. Glenn Greenwald: Why privacy matters | TED Talk | TED.Com,

www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters/. Accessed 16 June 2017.

Lombrozo, Tania. Why Personalized Internet Ads Are Kind Of Creepy. NPR, NPR, 13 Jan. 2014,

www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/01/12/261855182/why-personalized-internet-ads-are-kind-of-creepy.

Accessed 23 June 2017.

Mortier, Richard, et al. Human-Data Interaction: The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.

The Interaction Design Foundation, www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-

human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/human-data-interaction. Accessed 16 June 2017.

Orwell, George. 1984: a novel. New York, Plume, 1983.

Read the fine print. Prezi.com, prezi.com/terms-of-use. Accessed 16 June 2017.

 9

"Rick Smolan." BrainyQuote.com. Xplore Inc, 2017. 16 June 2017.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/ricksmolan705112.html