Google Switches To Defence In Its War On The Human Race

Nine months after Google's Chairman, Eric Schmidt, used his speech at Davos to declare war on the human race, he and the other  Big Data commanders find themselves very much on the defensive.

"I was suprised it turned this quickly," Mr Schmidt is quoted as saying of the political tide, after his European smarm offensive in June failed to avert calls for Google to be broken-up.

The trouble is that Big Data funds itself by selling the opportunity to find humans and present advertising to them. Even the craze in wearable devices is all about geolocating the wearer (and potentially their companion(s)) for advertising purposes. Ideally, you'll buy a watch or pair of glasses that will keep you reading ads and search results while on the move, but a wristband that tells your 'friends' what you're doing and where will do just nicely. Maybe one day you'll even go for the driverless car, so you can watch ads instead of the road.

As I mentioned in January, the advertising revenue that initially helped fund the transition from the analogue/paper world now dwarfs the value we actually get from Big Data and the Web. Mutuality - and humanity - is being sacrificed in the Big Data rush to sell you tat. Oh, and in the quest for The Singularity, when the high priests of SillyCon Valley believe that machines will achieve their own superintelligence and outcompete humans to extinction. Yes, really. 

In the same way that banks have grown from their mutual origins to suit themselves at our expense - keeping most of the 'spread' between savings and loans to suit themselves - Big Data platforms are primarily focused on how to leverage the data you generate ("Your Data") without rewarding you for the privilege.  GCHQ and the NHS are playing pretty much the same game.

But not all digital platforms finance themselves by using Your Data as bait for advertising revenue. Since eBay enabled the first person-to-person retail auction in 1995, that model has spread to create marketplaces in music, travel, communications, payments, donations, loans, investments and personal transport. The marketplace operators thrive by enabling many participants to use their own data to transact directly with each other in return for relatively small fees, leaving the lion's share of each transaction with the parties on either side. 

The marketplace model also reveals that most of daily transactions could be carried out between our machines. After all, they are much better at crunching all the data than we are. They are in the best position to combine our own transaction data, open public data and commercial product information to recommend the right car, mobile phone tariff or insurance products, without disclosing our identity to every advertiser in the process.  And why couldn't they arrange it so you switch to the cheapest phone or energy tariff each day, or switch car insurers depending on time of day or where your driving?

True, the platforms that enable you to leverage your own data more privately haven't yet attracted investors to the same extent as Big Data. eBay is solidly profitable and doesn't depend on substantial advertising revenues for its existence, yet it has a lower market capitalisation than Facebook or Google. It should come as no surprise to you that Wall Street and the world of high finance attaches a lower value to democratic and sustainable business models that don't suit a short term, institutional view of the world. But the financial news of 2014 must show institutional investors that we humans doubt whether Big Data has our best interests at heart. So the stock market value of marketplace operators may yet exceed that of the Big Data boys.

That's not to say that the whole Big Data movement has been a wasted experiment - it has just strayed from the path of simply digitising our daily experiences to trying to exploit them. Much of their technology could be re-aligned to empower you as an individual user, rather than treat you like a farm animal for the benefit of advertisers. 

Neither should we underestimate the Big Data giants' ability to reinvent themselves for the better. They are well-funded and more responsive to customers than banks and other institutions which have lost their way.

And it would be good to know they're working to sustain the human race, rather than kill it off.

Google Spain Case Raises More Questions Than It Answers

I'm an enthusiastic supporter of greater control over your data. But I'm really struggling with the European Court of Justice ruling that you can stop a search engine linking to something lawfully published about you in your local newspaper's online archive.

The case in question concerned the appearance of someone's name in a local Spanish newspaper announcement for a real-estate auction connected with proceedings to recover social security debts 16 years ago. The individual concerned (openly named in the judgment, ironically) claimed that the proceedings had been "fully resolved for a number of years and that reference to them was now entirely irrelevant." He failed to obtain an order banning the newspaper from carrying the item in its online archive, but succeeded in getting Google Spain to remove any links to it.

But surely if it was lawful for the local newspaper to have published the item of data - and it remains okay for it to publish the data via its website - then it should be okay to allow someone to find it?

I mean, why stop at gagging Google's local site? Why not make local libraries cut tiny holes in their microfiche records?

On this point, the ECJ cited problems where multiple jurisdictions were involved, even though this was purely Spanish scenario:

"Given the ease with which information published on a website can be replicated on other sites and the fact that the persons responsible for its publication are not always subject to European Union legislation, effective and complete protection of data users [subjects?] could not be achieved if the latter had to obtain first or in parallel the erasure of the information relating to them from the publishers of websites."

But how could removing links to an item from a national search engine achieve "effective and complete protection" of the data subject when the same items are lawfully available via a national newspaper's online archive anyway? Surely a national problem such as this has to be dealt with at source, or not at all?

Another key issue is that the ECJ didn't seem to weigh up all the possible public interests against the particular individual's rights to 'respect for private life' and 'protection of personal data'. 

Surely, for example, there was some public interest in the publication of the notices of auction complained about, such as achieving a fair price for property being sold to pay a debt to the state? Perhaps if that requirement had been abolished you could make a case for requiring the deletion of public notices relating to them. But, absent their abolition, I'm not sure you can say it's "entirely irrelevant" that someone was mentioned in such a notice, even if that were years ago.

And is there not a public interest in being able to more readily find published material via search engines? Consider the huge variety of research processes that must now rely on search engines, from journalistic research, to employment checks, to official background checks. What holes will now emerge in such research processes? Will records be kept of all the links that search engines were told to remove? If so, where will those records be kept? Who will be allowed to access them? Aren't researchers now on notice that they should check individual newspaper archives for data that search engines aren't allowed to let you find? How many won't bother when they really should?

The problems with the judgment don't end there, as is demonstrated by the tortuous path the ECJ took to reach its result (explained here). 

All of this underlines the need for careful policy thought and regulatory clarity around these issues, rather than the celebratory gunfire heard in some quarters. This judgment raises more questions than it answers.

 

Twitter Gnip Shows Why Social Media Should Share Revenue With Users

Source: Financial Times

Like Google's declaration of war on the human race, the news that Twitter will buy Gnip illustrates why social media platforms should share their Big Data revenue with users. Indeed, they would seem to have no choice if they are to survive in the longer term.

Gnip's CEO claims that:

"We have delivered more than 2.3 trillion Tweets to customers in 42 countries who use those Tweets to provide insights to a multitude of industries including business intelligence, marketing, finance, professional services, and public relations."

And that's not all. Gnip also has "complete access" to data from many other social media platforms, including WordPress, the blogging platform, and more restricted access to data from other platforms, such as Facebook, YouTube and Google+. 

Quite whether users consent to all that is an issue we'll return to in another post shortly. 

Meanwhile, Twitter suggests that Gnip's current activities have "only begun to scratch the surface" of what it could offer its Big Data customers in the future. Yet, from a user's perspective, Twitter has barely changed since Gnip began its data-mining activities. So are users receiving enough 'value' for their participation to keep them interested?

The social media operators would argue that their platforms would never have been built were it not for the opportunity to one day make a profit from users' activity on those platforms. And it may look like the features have not changed much since launch, but part of the value to users is the popularity with other users and it costs a lot to keep each social media platform working as the number of users grows. Each platform also has to keep up with changes to other platforms so users can continue to share links, photos and so on. That means platforms tend to lose a lot of money for quite a long time, as the FT's comparison chart shows. 

But analysing the value to users gets mirky when you consider that the social media are already paid to target ads and other information at users based on their behaviour, and that the cost of that type of Big Data activity is reflected in the prices of the goods and services being advertised. 

And it doesn't seem right to include the cost of buying and operating a separate Big Data analytics business, like Gnip, in the user's value equation if the user doesn't directly experience any benefit. After all, that analytics business will charge corporate customers good money for the information it supplies, and the cost of that will also be reflected in the price of goods and services to consumers. 

In other words, social media's reliance on revenue from targeted advertising and other types of Big Data activity means that social media services aren't really 'free' at all. Their costs are baked into the price of consumer goods and services, just like the cost of advertising in the traditional commercial media.

And if it's true that the likes of Gnip are only just scratching the surface of the Big Data opportunities, then the revenues available to social media platforms from crunching their users' data seem likely to far exceed the value of the platform features to users. 

Yet user participation is what drives the social media revenues in the first place (not to mention users' consent to the use of their personal data). The social media platforms aren't publishing their own content like the traditional media, just facilitating interaction, so there's also far less justification for keeping all the revenue on that score. And it seems easier to switch social media platforms than, say, subscription TV providers. 

So the social media platforms would seem to have no choice but to offer users a share of their Big Data revenue streams if their ecosystems are to be sustainable.