T**his article was taken from the March 2015 issue of WIRED magazine. Be the first to read WIRED's articles in print before they're posted online, and get your hands on loads of additional content by subscribing online.
When a handful of tech giants are gatekeepers to the world's data, it's no surprise that the debate about balancing progress against privacy is framed as "pro-data and, therefore, innovation" versus "stuck in the Dark Ages". Now the issue has been turned into one where you're either for enlightenment and progress or for stifling human advancement in the name of privacy, it becomes more difficult to say: "I'm against big data."
But why should multinational corporations put our interests ahead of their own? By assuming companies can be trusted to use our data responsibly, we are complicit in the notion that self-regulation will suffice -- and that we tamper with these innovators, by binding them up in regulation, at our peril.
This is dangerous. It simply isn't acceptable for the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon and others, which amass data by the terabyte, to say, "Don't worry, your information's safe with us as all sorts of rules protect you" -- when all evidence suggests otherwise.
Until the European Court of Justice created a "right to be forgotten", Google faced minimal constraints -- nd took little action -- to protect privacy. Similarly, Facebook has repeatedly insisted on its respect for users' privacy, but from its development of facial-recognition software to the way it tracks your movements across the web, the company has incrementally made private information public.
The history of business has shown that companies usually only regulate themselves if they're forced to by legislation, or out of self-interest -- often in the shape of a marketable message that will help sell more products.
Not only is self-regulation largely a fantasy, but repeated scandals across multiple industries have proved that companies are fundamentally incapable of self-regulating for the greater good.
Almost everywhere, it has taken regulators' intervention to curb the telcos' monopolistic inclinations and fondness for opaque pricing. Or take the energy giants, without which we'd struggle to heat our homes. But we would have endured far less pollution too -- these companies' "sustainability" campaigns came in the wake of massive oil spills, with TV pictures of crude-oil-soaked seabirds turning public opinion -- nd legislators -- against them.
I see no reason why tech companies should act any differently.
Expecting these businesses, with their unique access to big data, not to mine it to the bottom, and beyond, is naïve. Nor should we be remotely surprised whenever they smother new market entrants.
And just as the energy corporations and telcos have innovated to improve our lives, the data these technology companies are extracting is reshaping society for the better, from medicine to retail. But there will be costs: mass data breaches instead of oil spills. As with the telcos, there will be pricing opacity.
These are the price tags of progress and innovation. But just because costs are inevitable, it doesn't mean we shouldn't confront them. Tech companies need oversight.
That's why we need to find a balance between companies, governments and individuals about data and the right to privacy.
Striking a balance between innovation and regulation is complex.
The last thing we need is overzealous politicians stifling the very innovation our societies crave, or indeed for companies to try to dodge or game the guidelines. But that is where the rest of us come in. It's up to individuals to demand smart, effective laws -- and buy products and services from those companies striving to do the right thing.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
