The CEO Love Affair with Big Data

In September of 2014, Fox Business published an article titled “Big Data Is Good: A CEO’s Analysis”.  Within the article, author Craig Boundy not only asserts that big data is good but also fails to mention any downsides.  Choosing to focus only on positive effects, big data looks like the saving grace of the world.  Medical cures, reduced crime, increased productivity, who wouldn’t love big data?  People need to remember that every choice has both its up and down sides.  Big Data may help over there, but not without eroding privacy over here.

Oh but totally only look in the sun, who cares about the shade?

Craig asserts that, “insights derived from data are enabling millions to obtain their first lines of credit.”  As the CEO of Experian, an information services company that provides credit scores and reports to banks and credit card companies, I doubt he could make any other claim.  But is it true? Well, that remains unseen.  A report released by ChoicePoint contradicts this claim.  ChoicePoint was a data collections company founded by Equifax, Experian’s direct competitor.  Their report claims that big data collection has created the concept of “shadow scores,” an unofficial credit score created from a grouping of online activity from both shopping and browsing.  These shadow scores are used by lenders in addition to classic credit scores to decide on the availability of loans and credit cards.  This new information reported is not always beneficial to consumers.  Banks can see a much better example of your payment patterns, whether you will repay or not.  They can see what you pay back first and can build detailed charts of this behavior. Rather than using only the official credit score that is mandated by government regulation, banks use these shadow credits to find alternate reasons to discriminate against you for a loan. This means you could have a perfect official credit score but still get declined for information on you and your spending habits that you didn’t even know existed. So, Craig, it seems these insights are causing a lot more harm than good if you look at it objectively instead of from your board chair.

The second egregious point Craig makes regards Bid Data being done “right.” He states “When done right — and in compliance with existing laws and regulations on data use — data is a force for good, driving economic growth, empowering citizens and enabling our society to run more efficiently and const-effectively.” There’s several things wrong with these claims. First, there’s no real way for all of this to be “done right” as of now. What’s especially laughable is his reference to “compliance with existing laws and regulations…” We’ve discussed in previous posts how one of the biggest issues regarding the big data industry is the complete lack of regulation and oversight. For the most part, data transparency is an undefined grey area, the only real regulation that exists is self-regulation and we all know how well that works. (It doesn’t.)

Craig is definitely correct when he says big data drives economic growth, but he couldn’t be further from the truth when he tries to claim it “empowers citizens.” If there’s anything in this world that big data definitively doesn’t do, its empower the every-day consumer. It turns citizens into highly identifiable data points, slotted into the “potential customer” classification for any product that seems to match the list of interests they have. It takes their information, their likes, status updates and tweet streams and records them all without letting them know. It compiles shadow credit scores that are difficult for the average person to a) even know exists and b) access without difficulty, while potentially being the reason they can’t get a loan or a mortgage. It contributes your searches and private browsing history to background check sites that then share that information with potential employers and educational institutions.

Big Data has a lot of potential, but ignoring its numerous downfalls is akin to standing in the eye of a hurricane and claiming the day’s weather was perfect. Businesses have a lot to gain from utilizing Big Data, but if they don’t do so with reasonable transparency and consumer protection protocols in place, well…the rest of us have a lot to lose.

Broker Breakdown

Now that we’ve introduced Data Brokers to you and affirmed the criticisms pertaining to them, I’m going to show you what one of the Data Broker company execs has to say about his company and industry at large. Then I’m going to tell you why he’s wrong.

Brian Kennedy, CEO of Epsilon Data Management was featured in the 60 Minutes segment, The Data Brokers.  Epsilon claims to have the world’s largest working database and is a leader in their field. During his interview, Brian made various statements regarding regulation, consumers, and the Internet as a whole.
Mr. Kennedy states that he “see[s] no need for more oversight or regulation in one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy.” Honestly, I couldn’t disagree more.  What harm would regulation do? Kennedy likely thinks that regulation will harm data collection companies.  Restrictions on collection and use of data can only cost them money  and likely force them to stop performing some of their more unsavory business practices. It would protect consumers and users and allow for them to use the internet without fearing every site they visit being tacked on to their dossiers. The point of the matter is this: there is great need for regulations to protect consumers from data broker companies. The government is not in place to assist with a company’s bottom line, or to make it easier for it to operate at maximum profit. The government exists to provide checks on institutions so that the little guy (that would be us, by the way) don’t get bulldozed over. What makes Kennedy’s claim truly egregious is the fact that this “sector of the economy” he’s talking about is collecting and selling private information about people.

Mr.Kennedy also stated that he thought “self regulation [had] been very effective.” Well…of course the CEO of a Data Broker company would find self-regulation effective. That’s like putting a bunch of toddlers in a room full of candy and expecting them to self-regulate. We all know they’d rush in and take everything they could get their greedy little hands on and that fact stands true for Kennedy and his fellow Data Broker execs.

Everyone has their own opinion about what the internet is.  Kennedy wants you to know “that consumers need to understand that the internet is an advertising medium.”  This is rather ridiculous. The internet is plagued by advertising; there’s a reason people install applications like ad-block that remove all ads from their browsing experience. People do not like ads. People do not use the internet to view ads, and advertising should certainly not be considered some kind of inherent backbone to the internet. The internet has so many incredible, wonderful uses, and advertising is like the bacterial growth feeding on the internet’s underbelly. It’s inane to even make a claim like that, and it’s down right disturbing that he seemed to really believe it.

What’s so hilariously ironic about all of this is that Kennedy goes on to claim that he doesn’t put information about himself online ,”and I am a consumer like you are.” I really love how the Data Broker company CEO is saying that he doesn’t participate in the overarching online activity that makes his company even possible.

Sorry buddy, but even cigarette executives smoke.

Employers and Social Media: A Refutation

A major issue that is becoming increasingly more prominent in the workforce is whether or not employers should be able to access your personal social media accounts, such as Facebook and Twitter, to pass judgments about your life and your character. These judgments can play into whether or not you are hired in the company, or if you should maintain your job in the chance that your social media profiles display some sort of characteristic that a boss or employer does not agree with.

The Business Week article, “Employers, Get Outta My Facebook,” claims that, “when considering job applicants, prospective employers have no business poking around their profiles on social networking sites.” This article makes a few claims regarding the dangers and risks of having employers and bosses view the social media sites of potential and current employees, such as the unearthing of inaccurate information or a misrepresentation of a person’s true character from just a few instances on their site. The article also argues that even if a person makes their profile public, a public profile is a method for “casually interacting with others in an informal setting, on personal free time.” Whatever the risk, this article declares that employers should not be allowed free roam of a person’s social media accounts in order to make job-related judgments and evaluations.

I am in disagreement in reference to the argument that this article presents, in the sense that your information online is in a public domain, so employers do have a right to view the content, but they should do so only if you are fully aware that they are. When it comes to internet privacy and data transparency, a person has the right to know if someone is using their information – that is displayed on a public forum – in passing judgment or forming opinions. While information that is publicly available is legally allowed to be used in reporting and news, it should be in the right of individuals to be fully aware and notified of where and how their personal data is used when it is taken from online sources. In whole, public information is public for a reason – for all people to use it. But, the information should be used sensibly and with the person’s knowledge that you are using their personal information.

The Business Week article does present some possible benefits of employers being able to use your online information from social media websites, such as your Facebook page serving as an extension of your resume. However, this still does not allow a person  to understand when and how their personal information is used.

In order to best address this problem, employers should have their employees and potential employees sign a document that allows the employer to view social media websites to further research about their staff members. With this, people can understand when and how their information is used, and appropriately adjust their privacy settings if they wish to keep certain aspects about their life completely private.

Big Data- Is it really all that bad?

In one of their blog posts last year, umbel.com  attempted to explain what Big Data really is, and in doing so offered simplistic, boiled down summaries of what “Big Data” means and how it gets used. The crux of their argument seemed to be this: Big Data isn’t bad, it’s super prevalent, necessary, and plenty of companies are taking strides to develop data rights and become increasingly transparent.

I don’t know about you, but considering the current state of incredibly long and hard to understand “terms of service” and “privacy policy” documents, to me that sounds like a hunk of BS. Lets take this point by point, shall we?

1. Big Data is confusing: Yes, definitely agree with this one.

2. Big Data is overwhelming: Sure, I can totally get on board with this one too. Its pretty difficult to imagine (and come to terms with) the fact that everything you do online–from liking that girl’s picture on Facebook to googling new shoes or looking up that video tutorial on youtube–is all tracked and stored, not only within the individual platforms on which you performed that action, but then shared to virtually any other company that your original destination (like Facebook) deemed a “third-party” with whom they do business with.

3. Big Data isn’t actionable: Here’s where things seem to go a little south with this blog post. The writer claims “what big data does–revealing previously unknown connections between behavior, time, identity and lifestyle– doesn’t always have a clear next step…” If you notice the words I bolded, especially “identity” and “lifestyle” you may just begin to understand the kind of information Big Data includes. And of course this kind of information is actionable; why else would it be collected? A major factor of Big Data, when it comes down to it, is the ability to create large complex dossiers on individuals that are tied explicitly to them in order to understand better what you will and will not buy, and how best to convince you to consume various products and services. Companies collect and then sell incredibly private information about you, including your medical history, various dislikes and likes, and generally who you are and what you do in your day-to-day life. Remember that one time you googled that embarrassing bump you weren’t sure was a wart or not? Or how about that time you googled STD symptoms after a sketchy one night stand? Maybe a few years ago when you looked up the ingredients of a bomb because you were legitimately curious? They’ve got that all stored and tied directly to YOUR name and YOUR identity. They also gain access to your “click stream,” which basically means they watch, record and track every site you go to, how long you stay there, and where you go next. And the scariest part is this mysterious “they” I’m referring to can apply to almost any company, anywhere. And you wouldn’t even know it.

4. Big Data is Expensive: Well, I can’t really comment from an economic point of view on this. I don’t have any way to tell you how much it costs these companies to collect all this data but I can say from a logical point of view that it really can’t be that expensive when virtually every company–big and small–is doing it. Remember angry birds? (Of course you do.) Well that app (or, rather, the company behind the app)  was going into your mobile phone and tracking your location after you were done shooting multicolored birds at some smug pigs, likely selling it off to whatever third parties they saw fit. So sure, maybe big data is expensive to collect, but considering even a small mobile-game maker can do it, its price tag doesn’t seem like a very big deterrent to its use.

5. Big Data is Rarely Explained In Understandable Terms: Well, here I most definitely agree. But what I don’t agree with, and find somewhat troubling, is the following quote: “DMP, CRM, Hadoop, batch computing, second-party data, data rights management: those aren’t your typical Internet acronyms. Instead, they are very serious, very meaningful terms that can seriously increase company revenue” Hmm.. well, thats great for businesses, hurray for revenue increases! But what about the average consumer, why isn’t anyone looking out for us? Trust me, I get it, I get that this society is capitalistic and its all about the money and that’s all it it’ll ever be about, but its kind of disheartening when a post that seems like its supposed to educate and explain Big Data doesn’t see the need to do so on behalf of the people its affecting, but instead for the companies that can stand to profit from it. Of course companies make bank off of Big Data, it seems like it would be almost impossible to have all this information of millions on people and not be able to use it in a profitable way. But its also alarming to realize that companies you’ve never personally interacted with know exactly who you are, what you like to eat, and where you’ll be every Thursday morning. But hey, who cares, at least they’re making more money right? (Cue eye roll)

6.  Big Data isn’t Legal (Or is it?): This is probably my favorite point because after the header the writer goes on to say “It is – though the courts are stepping up their game”. Maybe I’m just picking up on a tone that isn’t there, or maybe I’m just getting heated from sifting through this explanatory-post-that-doesn’t-actually-explain-anything, but to me it sort of sounds like the writer is inferring that the courts taking action isn’t necessarily a good thing. Lets keep in mind that this post was written in 2013. Its now 2015, and objectively it seems like the issue has only gotten worse. I was listening to a 60 minutes segment that talks about data privacy and was annoyingly not shocked to hear an executive from a data collection company claim that regulation would hurt the industry and cause major economic problems. I’m going to go ahead and call major BS on that; my guess is that his companies and others like it are lobbying as hard as they can with all that questionably attained big data profit to reject any oversight or governmental regulation, that way they can continue following you around the internet logging everything you visit, submit, read, like or comment on and put it together in a nice neat file with your full identity and sell it off to the highest bidder.

7. Big Data Looks Like Excel: No comment on this one.

8. Big Data is Too Big: The author writes “Indeed, processing all of the data that is out there is much too large a task for any one company. Then again, that isn’t the point of big data.” I’m going to go ahead not so respectfully disagree. Sure processing all that data is too much for one company to process, but lets keep in mind here that its not just one company doing it. Its virtually every company and their various third party affiliates sifting through your online activities and compiling them together, sending it to one another upon request, adding to it and sending it forward once more. Its not like there’s just this one guy sitting in his office watching you switch between researching a new watch and browsing buzzfeed: its a gazillion computers, almost all companies have them, and you can’t escape it.

9.  Big Data is Like Big Brother: BINGO!!! Finally. The author admits that “Unfortunately, some big data does function this way, often third-party data.” Sadly following this startling epiphany the author then continues to say, “However, first- and second-party data are building the foundations of a digital data democracy in which users own their data and decide to which companies they want to grant access. This is being spearheaded by companies like Umbel, Facebook, Apple and more, as well as encouraged by the White House.” Alright, let me take this one step at a time. First and second party can definitely be useful and necessary to a company’s efficiency and ultimately a customer’s satisfaction while using that company’s services and products. First and second party data, however, is still personal and private data on you, and in no shape way or form do users actually own this data, and nor do they ever have the ability to decide which companies will see it. Let me ask you something, seriously sit down and think about this for a second: Have you ever, in the history of everdom, had a website ask you whether or not they could collect your data? Has Facebook ever personally asked for your permission to blast a fake update of you “liking” some random company or product onto all your friend’s newsfeeds? (Newsflash: This happens all the time. I’m putting money on the fact that your friend doesn’t like target enough to like their Facebook page, or that your friend’s mom who runs a marriage counseling service likes the Ashley Madison affair Facebook page. Yes, that actually happened.) You don’t own your data now, and unless some HUGE regulations and changes are made, you never will. So, Umbel, you can put that in your pipe and smoke it; if you’re claiming that Facebook is ever going to allow users to own their own data, I’m assuming you already have.

10. Big Data- You Can’t Escape It: Lets have a round of applause for the writer! Oh wait- I spoke too soon, apparently ” it is possible to escape big data”. I’m going to go ahead and say that the word “possible” can also apply to humans flying–just because no one has been able to do it doesn’t mean its not possible one day for it to happen. (Cue eye roll #2) The author references a woman named Janet Vertesi who “stopped big data from finding out she was pregnant. It’s quite the epic tale.” Uh, does no one else see anything wrong with that? That it required steps and procedures the author deemed as “epic” just to keep prying internet eyes from knowing she was pregnant? I don’t know about you but it makes zero sense to me that someone would have to jump through massive hoops just to keep a private medical status secret from “big data.” So sure, for now escaping Big Data may be “possible” but thats only if you have the time, knowledge and wherewithal to actually do so. Typically subverting Big Data also means using anonymized networks, setting up VPNs to send your ISP darting around the world perpetually. But even these techniques have their shortcomings, and sometimes they only call more attention to you once you’ve mysteriously fallen off the grid.  Just like our author states, “However, as the Internet of Things grows and more items become interconnected, including your toothbrush, cup, ceiling fan and more, avoiding big data collection is going to become increasingly more difficult.” I seriously wonder how much more difficult than virtually impossible subverting Big Data can be. These days, if you truly want to avoid having every detail of your life scooped up and sold, you’re going to have to do it 50’s style and ditch the internet completely. So good luck with that.

But wait, there’s more! Our author kindly informs us “But there is good news: who you allow to collect your data is going to be up to you. At least, that’s the end goal behind drafting and enforcing data rights. In the end, big data is going to create a more convenient, enjoyable online world.” If you say so, but I won’t be holding my breath, especially considering most companies are fighting tooth and nail against any of that ever happening.