Is "freedom" like "trust"?   Can we replace the word boundary with experience?

This post puts into words the fundamental shift that I have had difficulty in explaining for a while.  I believed that the prime privacy issues were erosion and  fear but now I think it is an adjustment to a new paradigm of what public means.  Public tends to mean information is available and current (news) or available but inaccessible (marriage record). The majority of us understand public in its “current public” form as it is about here and now (broadcast TV, radio, daily newspapers). This view of public was friendly as it naturally leads to a softening or erosion over time until forgiven and forgotten. With the advent of the Internet public now carries the same meanings but we have added a third dimension; always there, no control, no hiding, permanent and always accessible. 

How can privacy die?

Privacy is closer to gravity and electrons, in the mind of the public, than to bricks and trees, so how can it die?  Privacy is a concept, something you explain but cannot touch and to every person the idea can be explained from their own personal perspective. Privacy is a boundary between private and public, but depends on the perspective. 

The Wikipedia article on privacy is a rounded, by dogged by trying to detail every aspect of privacy from all angles, however there are some good snippets that help.

“The boundaries and content of what is considered private differ among cultures and individuals, but share basic common themes.”

“Privacy may be voluntarily sacrificed, normally in exchange for perceived benefits and very often with specific dangers and losses, although this is a very strategic view of human relationships.”

“Many languages lack a specific word for "privacy"”

The concept of privacy is not difficult, as it is the boundary between private and public, the complexity arrives in the definition when one considers context and experience.  Our date of birth is a public record but is often used as an identifier for private services; therefore I should keep it as private as possible.

“Privacy is Dead” but that doesn’t mean that it no longer exists as I can feel its warmth and pulse. Privacy will always exist whilst there is law to protect the boundary between public and private. 

Redefining Public

Public meant everyone and still does. Public means TV, radio, Broadcast, newspapers and the internet.  However, conceptually public meant here today, gone tomorrow.  Yesterday’s news is now old and is therefore not new and has less value.  You throw away yesterdays newspapers.  If you want last weeks news your can go to the library, if desperate there are specialists who will search microfiche for really old materials.  The idea of public was acceptable as you could eventually hide and be forgotten.  I am coming to the opinion that the issue is not about erosion of the boundaries or what is acceptable but our definition of Public.

My business policy lecturers back in 1992, George Luffman and Stuart Sanderson had their phrase “so what”.  It was a rhetorical question to ask whenever you though you had unearthed something new from analysis, as a method to expose if there is any value in the revelation.   The definition of Public needs updating – so what?

The obvious “so what” is that the Internet brings longevity and ease of access. There is now no hiding and it is this fundamental shift is that redefines Public which I believe is the conceptual problem we are struggling with.  Public, as a phrase, is evolving into three distinct concepts: permanent (internet public) temporary (news, broadcast) and available (certificates)

Why is Public important to Digital Footprints

Privacy, and the erosion thereof, easily sparks debate.  Big Brother ideals spread fear, but we are will to leave our digital data with everyone.  Understanding longevity of Public may could change a persons view of privacy.

After discover there are 4 phases of digital footprint evolution; on the path to understanding the value of your digital data and how Brands have to re-think segmentation in the digital social media age and focus on the “rainbow of trust”

Discovery. As the title suggests this is the phase where you discover Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Youtube and you engage with full throttle in this new and exciting social media experiment.

Ø1  Fear. The first impact of digital footprints occurs on the personal realisation that all your digital data can be gathered and analysed. The fear phase represents the understanding that you must be careful about what you say about yourself and others. This is where the digital immigrants focus, spending a lot of time on the education of the digital natives.

Ø2  Spring clean. The second stage is when you wake up and understand that digital footprints are actually what you say, what you do, how you do it, where you do it and also critically important what your social crowd say about you and your information, data and content. This is the spring clean phase where you choose carefully who your family, friends and associates and what content you will post and link to. This could also be known as the un-link phase where you un-link “friends.”

Ø3 Selective. The third awaking is when you realise you are the product of a barter and that web services companies are actually trading your digital footprint data for services.  If you want free services you need to share more and more data and information. Further the web services companies continually want to cross your personal privacy barrier. This becomes the selective phase where you decide to focus on a few web services rather than leave data everywhere.

Ø4 Value.  The next phase of your digital footprint evolution is now less to do with you and your social crowd but is to do with the analysis of your data.  Few people reach this level of understanding as it is about who influences you and who you influence. This is where value can be realised for Brands. 

and the link between digital footprint and segmentation is…

Demographic segmentation leads to the placement of ads in your Facebook profile.  Depending on your age, sex and location you will have a certain propensity to selective ads. As you share more data and information, which builds your digital footprint, you also reveal preferences.  This helps further focus traditional advertising. 

However the analysis of how you behave online and who you watch and listen too starts a whole new process of discovery of who influences you and who you influence. This allows advertisers to create new value for brands as they shift from traditional placement to influence based on a rainbow of trust. Who do you trust and who trust you.  Think recommendation.

The assumption is that the rainbow of trust is a continuum and shows that people have a different propensity of trust, from untrusting to very trusting, and who they trust: a brand, the government, people, things, friends or relationships. The key to gaining value from this segmentation is the analysis of digital footprint data as this allows a Brand to determine the chain of influence.  Who listens to the first message, who passes it on and who it affects?  The analysis determines influence based on value by trust and risk, and not by product or lifestyle.

Conceptually within a rainbow of trust based segmentation, there is no market aligned to age, lifestyle, income, demographics, early adopters or followers. It moves the ideas from the young who explore, and the old who stay with what they know, even if it is not the best. It will be (is now) possible to determine trust as we now have access to the very data needed to determine it.

more reading …. http://www.mydigitalfootprint.com/footprint-cms/MY_DIGITAL_FOOTPRINT_AND_CONVERGED_SERVICES.html

image - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/09/ukcrime-facebook

The response from Facebook to the tragic story of Ashleigh Hall today highlights a growing sense of unease about a digital world.  I am under no illusion that education and care play an important, if not critical, part in protecting those who will inherit our digital present. 

In the opening to my book I said that a “digital footprint” is like marmite; some like it and some don’t.  Reading the responses to the Ashleigh Hall story, it is clear that this is a sane view. Facebook and other social network supporters are out in strength and waving the banners about benefits and this is contrasted with the stark reality from others who have been harmed and violated.  There is common ground about education and ensuring that you follow well published and sensible guide lines about your information and how to behave.  

I am however worried about the view that somehow we should look to processes and technology to save us from our social failing and responsibility.  Technology, be it a knife, car, laser, stun gun, pepper spray, Facebook or mobile can be used in anyway that the holder of the technology sees fit.  Processes are unfortunately only as good as the people who run them.  We can clearly see how technology can make it easier, both to commit crime and solve crime, but neither bring accountability or responsibility.

Digital footprint data, if you opt in can deliver reputation and other benefits, but this digital world suffers from the same real issues as our physical life, some decide to opt out, lie and deceive.  We have been unable to solve the real, so why should a single button solve the digital?

image from the BBC

Words are both a blessing and a curse; phrases are fashionable, colloquial and always misinterpreted.  Today at the dentist I was told I had a “communication” and that got me thinking about how we use the same word in different professions and how the same phrase communicates different things depending on location and intent.  My interest here is “Digital Footprint” and here are the most common interpretations I found today….

1. Digital Footprint is an term that helps educate our children about the dangers of being on-line; followed by the following advise; if in doubt don’t do it and if you do it will be found (probably the most popular use)
2. Digital Footprint describes the data you leave in the Internet from your keyboard and mouse.
3. Digital Footprint is the data you leave in the cloud from you all your interactions, creating and consuming, passive and active with all digital devices.
4. Digital Footprints describe your digital identity and digital reputation.
5. A Digital Footprint is your history of financial transactions.
6. A Digital Footprint in the area that an integrated circuit/chip/silicon occupies
7. Digital footprint is the footprint (area) that a digital device occupies when placed on a surface (least Popular)

My insight from this is that more is needed to gain common ground and bring about insight.

Telecom.TV asked this week “Who owns the clickstream? Perhaps we all do!

Whilst we all think we do own the click stream, it is not so clear. The click stream is also only a tiny proportion of the data that you can get as a company. The issue raised about Trust in the article is an important, but it should have asked what we trust companies for. There is a grey area between what we trust a supplier for, what we would trust them for, what by law they could do and what I expect them to do. This is a mind field and opens up opportunities for growth companies who want to take a leadership position where the major brands are too concerned about protection and governance.

Telecom.TV article