Google announced that they will anonymize user
information in 18-24 months. I think
this is a great step in the right direction (though some think that this may be
a PR maneuver). Why 2
years? John Battelle thinks this is
“because Google is all over personalization and doesn't want to hobble itself.”
I tend to agree. I also think that two
years is a very long time to lose one's privacy.
I think what needs to change is the basic model of how
the user and the environment interact. Let me illustrate this by telling you a
story that sounds a bit like the movie “Minority Report”:
“It is the year 2012. It has been a good year for me and
business is doing well. I am rushing to the airport, late for a flight to Texas to meet with some
customers and to close a $3 million deal! Thanks to the BBT (Big Brother Technologies, Inc.) equipment the airport
has installed this year, I am instantly recognized by the airport the minute I
enter. My wrist-screen immediately displays my gate information. I pass through
the security screeners, and as I walk to my gate, I am targeted with
personalized advertisements on the BBT screens along the corridor - including a
number of screens that notify me that my plane has been delayed. What a relief! This is followed by other
on-screen suggestions to stop at the Starbucks for my favorite coffee and to
catch my breath. Good idea! These things
know me too well. I arrive at the
Starbucks, grab a latte and plop myself down for a minute. A couple of BBT officers approach me. Very gently, they ask me if I will go with
them.
…
I come out two days later. I was in custody, trying to
prove that I was not connected to a bombing in Texas the week before. It turns out that a couple of terrorists
hacked into the BBT computers and impersonated my digital signature. They entered the airport, pretending to be
me, to plant a bomb. I was digitally framed!”
Of course, this is just a story, a fabrication to
illustrate a point - that when your environment knows your presence it opens up
a whole new set of vulnerabilities. As
suggested in my previous post "Google the Spy?," this model, however
well intentioned it may be, is prone to hackers, terrorists, and yes, just like
in Minority Report, frame-ups.
We all would love to enjoy the conveniences that come
from a world that adapts itself to us. However, I prefer a vision of the future
which involves a fundamentally different model with a similar outcome:
My “wearable computer” knows everything about me but
never discloses my identity unless it is absolutely necessary and with proper
authorization. The airport does not know that "I" have arrived. Instead, the airport first gets a query from
my wearable computer for the gate number of my flight. It may also get a query for the location of
my favorite coffee place, and my wearable may communicate with the screen I am
passing by to tell it which of the ads I am likely to be interested in. Later, the message of my flight delay is
communicated in response to a query from my wearable, letting me know that I'm
free to relax at Starbucks for another hour.
While this is not a guarantee against identity theft, I
am more likely to discover if someone has stolen my wearable computer, enabling
me to take action quickly and making it more difficult for someone to
impersonate me. Technology can also guarantee that my computer can only be used
by me (such as through fingerprinting). On the other hand, when someone steals my identity online I may not find
out about it until it's too late.
In short, my computer discovers my environment and makes
my environment conform to my needs without revealing my identity.
Same outcome, different model. I feel much safer with the
second version.
- Cuneyt
