Data Privacy and its Consequences

This opinion piece appeared in the EPFL Forum Magazine (p. 22), but since most people will never see it there, I thought I'd post it. [I hope the student editors of the magazine read Martin Vetterli's interview on open science and apply the same spirit to this reposting.]



Data Privacy and its Consequences 

Prof. James Larus
School of Computer and Communications Sciences, EPFL

Public perception is slowly changing in regards to data privacy. From fighting terrorism to getting targeted advertisement instead of random ads, many people feel as if giving up a bit of privacy may not be such a bad thing. But is it? James Larus, Professor and Dean of the School of Computer and Communication Sciences at EPFL, sheds light on this complex issue. 

What is your privacy worth? Probably more than you expect.

Most people unknowingly trade away detailed, specific personal information for a “handful of trinkets” and, in doing so, have made companies like Google, Facebook, Baidu, and Tencent immensely valuable and wealthy. The business model of these companies is to offer a free service (web search, chat, social media) and to collect detailed and specific information about their customers’ interests and activities.

This information is immensely valuable to these companies, as they turn around and use it to sell targeted advertisements to other enterprises, which are willing to pay a high price to put their ads in front of consumers with specific characteristics or interests. In 2017, Facebook, for example, made an average of $26.76 of revenue for each of its users in the US.

If you would be willing to pay more than this amount to use Facebook, perhaps you believe that this is a fair trade:

Facebook connects you with your friends, and in return, it gains the opportunity to sell part of your attention to advertisers. But, like many economic transactions, this exchange does not capture the full cost to society of targeted advertising.

In the last US presidential election, the Brexit referendum, and other European elections, we saw the tremendous efficacy of targeted advertising in political campaigns. It allows a campaign, political party, or foreign government to communicate directly with likely supporters and to deliver a message that cannot be challenged or rebutted by opponents, as they are unlikely to ever see the advertisement.

This is new. In the past, it was difficult to find and communicate with a large number of people except through public forums like newspapers, television or public advertisements, which exposed a message to both partisans and opponents, who could debate the truth, correctness, or value of an idea through open, public discourse. In the words of the US Judge Louis Brandeis, “Sunlight is said to
be the best of disinfectants.”

Personally, I would be happy to pay for these services and not have them collect information about me and display ads. Many of you might feel different, but we should all be aware that the ability to show ads to a narrowly selected group is a powerful weapon that is likely to have consequences beyond those that we have already seen.




Comments