The data paradox: why we rely more on Google than the State
The announcement that it will analyze Spanish mobile data for a mobility study has caused a scandal, however, we gladly transfer it to Facebook, Amazon or Google. Why this contradiction? While they 'give us' some tangible service in return, public projects are diffuse and long term
Geolocation allows when you are going around the neighborhood to appear on your mobile an ad of a textile company that curiously has a store 25 meters away. Big data - massive data processing - will make the bank decide in the not too distant future whether granting you credit is riskier more effectively than studying your payroll. Or if your child will be able to study in a private university based on their behavior on social networks.
However, this does not worry about the Spaniards.
At least not as much as an announcement made this week by the National Institute of Statistics (INE). This public body will keep track of Spanish mobile phones for eight days this month after reaching an agreement with the three main telephone operators in exchange for almost half a million euros. Its objective is to carry out a study on mobility.
The collective malaise before this action has been transferred to social networks. Even the Data Protection Agency has asked the INE for explanations regarding the protocols established in the agreement with the operators. But the INE case raises a question that goes beyond whether a violation of rights has been committed: do Spanish, Google, Facebook or Amazon Spaniards trust the State more?
It seems that if.
In this case, the telephone companies will deliver to the INE the anonymous and aggregated count of mobile positions in the 3,500 cells in which the national territory is divided with a minimum of 5,000 inhabitants per grid. The INE can only know the movements of these grids and it will be impossible to identify the people tracked. But this anonymity does not relieve the sensation of many who feel imprisoned in hypervigilance, collateral damage born in societies that coexist between two worlds: the physical and the digital.
«I do not understand that citizens are alarmed that the information is available and not of the use made of it: at least we know the use of the INE, which is statistical, when there are many companies that make illegitimate use of the information», José Rosell, cybersecurity expert and partner of S2 Grupo.
"Many times these social alarms that occur periodically are due to a lack of transparency, but this does not mean that this money is misused," says Eduard Blasi, an expert in Digital Law and a professor at the UOC. «Transparency is vital when there are treatments of this type that affect many citizens».
Experts agree that the reason for this alarm is that we are more permissive when we are offered a specific service in return. And that the end of the INE study could improve public decision making: from knowing which bus line needs to be reinforced too, for example, if there is a demand for students in a neighborhood that needs to build a new institute. What happens is that this is not tangible in the short term.
Despite this, there is no collective outrage when we use Google Maps to get to the cinema or Amazon to buy headphones on sale. Especially if we consider that, unlike the INE, the destination of our data with these companies is much more opaque.
The problem is not in the existence of this information, but in the use made of it
JOSÉ ROSELL, EXPERT IN CYBERSECURITY
This unconsciousness about privacy fascinates Rosell: «Today any mobile phone has between 10 and 20 sensors. In addition to geolocation, there are cameras, microphones ... People do not think about what this implies. I fear that the alarm only goes off in specific cases such as the INE or when it was discovered that a Lidl kitchen robot with internet access had a hidden microphone and speaker that could be hacked.
The mobile has become in some way our walking ID. And an ID has its value in the market, especially in the field of advertising. The phone's sensors leave what is called a fingerprint: the trace of each individual on the Web.
Telephone operators monitor us through antenna tracking. This has many implications, both positive and negative. This data can help emergency services to locate someone who is suffering a heart attack or police detention of a criminal, but also flood our fake news profiles to try to condition our vote in the elections.
Like the Roman god Janus, technology has two faces. "The problem is not that this information exists, but what is done with it," Rosell emphasizes.
In 2020 it is estimated that, according to an OBS business school report, there will be more than 30,000 million devices connected to the internet in the world. Or what is the same, our fingerprint will be bigger every day, so the privacy debate has only just begun.
The INE case has triggered fear of states handling certain information. They already drive a lot but the use of big data will go to more not only for reasons of efficiency but especially for money: in the long run, this information processing is cheaper than the traditional survey system.
The INE case has triggered the Orwellian fear of the State handling certain data
In the era of the rise of hypervigilance, the Orwellian perspective rooted in people's cultural memory is broadened. It is the fear of Big Brother. Even more so when in the 90s the virtual world was sold by Silicon Valley as the paradigm of freedom and in the 21st century it is also a source of oppression, as seen in dictatorships such as China.
There is no doubt that, with exceptions, the invasions of our personal sphere annoy us less than we appear. We are laxer with some than with others. The capitalism of vigilance is increasingly voracious. And we accept it.
We are articles of the digital bazaar, subjects of the paradox of privacy.