Big Govt and Big Tech are watching what we do

With data becoming the new oil, our privacy is in peril

Is our 'deeply personal' information being 'weaponised' and used against us by the 'data industrial complex'? No, the question is not being posed in relation to statements by some kooky conspiracy theorist. It stems from a much more credible source: Tim Cook, CEO of Apple.
Cook made the remarks in a speech in Brussels last week at the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners. He said, "Rogue actors and even governments have taken advantage of user trust to deepen divisions, incite violence, and even undermine our shared sense of what is true and what is false. This crisis is real. It is not imagined, or exaggerated, or crazy."
The Apple CEO underlined how data is now regarded as the new oil because "countless decisions are made, on the basis of our likes and dislikes, our friends and families, our relationships and conversations. Our wishes and fears, our hopes and dreams." These translate into transactions worth billions of dollars. What's most troubling is that whilst each morsel of data may be innocuous in isolation, when they are "carefully assembled, synthesised, traded, and sold," they become extremely valuable as detailed profiles of a person's activities can be constructed for commercial purposes.
And it's not just businesses that are engaging in this profiling. As Cook explained, "Your profile is then run through algorithms that can serve up increasingly extreme content, pounding our harmless preferences into hardened convictions." In other words, misinformation and manipulation campaigns as exemplified by the Russian election interference during the 2016 US elections fuel extremism and groupthink and infect the political arena.
As an antidote, Cook expressed support for the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and advocated for a federal privacy law in the United States. He made the case for four rights to secure privacy: the right to have personal data minimised; the right for users to know what personal data is collected; the right to access that data; and the right for data security.
To be clear, the Apple CEO might be engaging in cheap talk. Unlike many of its tech rivals, Apple's business model is not currently heavily reliant on collecting tonnes of user data. That is the province of Facebook, Google, and other players. And Facebook, in particular, has endured an annus horribilis following revelations about Cambridge Analytica and other scandals. Similarly, Google has been under the microscope from lawmakers in the United States about its privacy practices and targeted advertising of users. Therefore, Cook, recognising that regulation may be on the horizon might be sticking the knife into competitors knowing that they have more to lose from strict data protection laws. He might also be engaging in some low-cost virtue-signalling by seeking to differentiate Apple from other tech companies.
Nonetheless, Cook's warnings should not be ignored. Instead, they should be treated with the seriousness they merit and the same spotlight should be shone on Apple. Even if Apple has not experienced publicly disclosed data leaks like Facebook and other companies, the reality is that Apple devices are probably the most invasive data collection devices known to man. As anyone who owns an iPhone can attest to, the device is effectively an ankle bracelet - virtually a constant appendage of the body. It collects and transmits information even when it is not on. And most people take it everywhere - even the bathroom.
The United States Supreme Court noted these worries in the recent case of Carpenter - concerning the collection of cell phone location data. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his majority opinion that cell phones have become virtually a "feature of human anatomy." During oral arguments, Justice Sotomayor, observed that the government was virtually in the bedroom as most people took their phones with them to bed.
Similar concerns animated Justice Chandrachud's dissenting opinion in the Aadhaar case in the Indian Supreme Court recently. The judges in the majority opinion accepted the government's justifications and assurances about data collected every time the Aadhaar card is used not being aggregated for commercial or surveillance purposes. However, Justice Chandrachud's opinion raises the prospect of how sensitive biometric data could be aggregated with other data such as location and banking to construct profiles that provide detailed information about a person's whereabouts and activities. Even if this is not being done currently, there is little assurance that it will not be done in the future. Hence the absolute need for data minimalisation - the only way to prevent abuse is to not provide unnecessary data. There is absolutely no need for iris scans and finger prints to be provided to a mobile phone operator or to a bank to open a bank account.
Apple's CEO ended with a warning: "We shouldn't sugarcoat the consequences. This is surveillance. And these stockpiles of personal data serve only to enrich the companies that collect them . This should make us very uncomfortable. It should unsettle us." Unfortunately, the warnings appear to be falling on deaf ears - consumers are parting with private information in a remarkably cavalier way, and data breaches do not appear to be altering this behaviour. In fact, with every breach, the attendant invasions of privacy appear to be becoming the new normal.
Coevally, governments in many countries are taking advantage of lax consumer attitudes to collect vast troves of data - ranging from India's Aadhaar scheme to China's pervasive use of facial recognition and web surveillance. These actions are being justified on grounds of being necessary for the efficient provision of government benefits (India) or maintaining order and tackling crime (China).
Our privacy rights - earned over centuries of contestation with the state - should not be sacrificed at the altar of devices that are barely a few decades old. Once lost, humankind may find privacy hard to regain and regress into an animal existence. There is no app to fix that problem.
Sandeep Gopalan is Pro Vice-Chancellor at Deakin University, Australia