constitute a greater danger to the privacy of the individual.’
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, died 1974
were, I believe, referring to opposing sides of the privacy coin: The former
was talking about government surveillance of the Orwellian sort; the latter’taken
from a 2009 blog post’spoke to people’s increasing compulsion to publicize their
two assumes there is a line that can be crossed, aka ‘informed consent.’
top security and legal experts’have argued that informed consent is more or
less a fallacy, because the information needed to make a fully informed choice
is largely inaccessible to the
Inaccessible by design‘for legit* purposes
(national security or law enforcement) and also for ethically questionable purposes
(ex. Facebook’s privacy gaffes and antics).
Snowden beehive in this forum today.
Inadvertently inaccessible, but fixable‘Ex. privacy
policies that can only be deciphered by lawyers or that will only be read by
very patient, unusually suspicious people with lots of time on their hands.
Inadvertently inaccessible, but unavoidable‘the
complex tangle of partnerships, affiliations, agreements and policy overlaps,
oversights, contradictions, accidents, etc., that comprise our digital universe
(it is called the Web, after all) make it practically impossible for someone to
be completely informed of all the ways information about them may be or is
intelligentsia (not used in the pejorative here) to debate whether or not we’re
doomed to life in a digital panopticon, but the jury appears to be indefinitely
out when it comes to the ownership and control of all of those data points we’re
generating in the digital realm.
privacy debate isn’t going anywhere; it’s just getting started.
seem generally resigned to and even comfortable with the fact that information
about them is being collected by unknown others and used in all kinds of ways
for all sorts of purposes that we aren’t aware of and might not consent to if
tenuous peace at best.
two of FoCI’s sister events within the past six months’Foresight & Trends
and Media Insights & Engagement, respectively’whose speakers warned their
audiences that the sleeping giant is stirring.
matters to insights jocks more than one might suppose.
maintain respondents’ trust, and I think most would agree that there’s no
privacy bugaboo in taking surveys, participating on panels, etc.
double opt-in instruments are still the primary source of consumer intelligence’debatable’they’re
certainly not the only source.
from across the digital universe. The sheer breadth of sources without a doubt increases
the likelihood that we’ve violated someone’s privacy.
intelligence field becomes increasingly dependent upon and intertwined with technology,
we find ourselves in an increasingly precarious position because we cannot be
guaranteed that the data we’re collecting and analyzing was captured with
professionals cast in the traditional mold aren’t the only ones accessing and
using these data. We’re not necessarily the gatekeepers and we can’t always
know which information from even our own internal databases is being used, how
and by whom.
chief privacy officer, or in lieu of a CPO, typically a mishmash of IT and
and co-author of ‘The Privacy Engineer’s Manifesto: Getting from Policy to Code
to QA to Value.’
technological aspects of data security and privacy.
Fox and Thomas Finneran have developed a new model: ‘privacy
engineering,’ which endeavors to operationalize privacy and embed it in the products and processes companies use, buy, create and
engineering is a way to build respect for information about people back into
our infrastructure and to think about data from the consumer perspective,’
Dennedy told The Research Insighter.
is particularly important to the Future of Consumer Intelligence audience
because companies are increasingly looking outside the
research function to data scientists to manage Big Data.
approach outlined in ‘The Privacy Engineer’s Manifesto’ appears to offer a blueprint consumer researchers can
use to insinuate themselves in the fundamental discussions that shape not only
harness Big Data moving forward.
best, most companies probably leverage maybe 1-2% of the true import of data
through analytics that count,’ noted Dennedy.
think a lot of these Big Data analytics are wrong or bad,’ she added, ‘because
they fail to address the true business problem, and by that I mean a human
understand the business case and how data should be leveraged,’ she observed.
time for researchers to step up and reach out to their counterparts in
functions they may not normally work with, even if it means taking on projects
outside their current purview.
and marketing researchers become quintessentially important when they carry
insights across the aisle,’ Dennedy said.
sure those customer insights and pain points are part of the equation from the
this podcast for The Research Insighter’the official interview series of the
Future of Consumer Intelligence (FoCI) conference’Dennedy discusses:
Privacy Manifesto’ at The Future of Consumer Intelligence Conference taking place May 19-21 in Universal City,
Consumer Intelligence when you use code FOCI14BLOG.
Register here today!
ABOUT THE AUTHOR / INTERVIEWER
Marc Dresner is IIR USA’s sr. editor and special communication project lead. He is the former executive editor of Research Business Report, a confidential newsletter for the marketing research and consumer insights industry. He may be reached at email@example.com. Follow him @mdrezz.