Menu
Mobile IT Roach Motel: Data checks in, but it won't check out

Mobile IT Roach Motel: Data checks in, but it won't check out

Even if a company were willing to expunge personal data that it had been authorized to collect, the realities of IT systems mean it probably could never completely do that

In a perfect world, consumers and employees would have complete control of any data that is specifically about them. They could choose who gets it and how it can be used. Crucially, they would have constant access to a list of where and how their data is being used, and they could edit it at whim.

But you might have noticed that we don't live in a perfect world.

Various privacy advocates have sought such user privacy controls, with European telecom giant Orange being the latest to champion the idea. Beyond the calls for action, little has actually happened. This will be hard for many of you to believe, but the company that has come closest to delivering a tool that could give users more control over their data was Google, which tends to view privacy the way Superman views Kryptonite. Rest assured, though, the release of that tool to the public was unintended and Google quickly shut it down. Perhaps when Google saw the Electronic Frontier Foundation applaud the tool, the company realized that it had accidentally served up something that was Google poison.

The question of whether such privacy controls would be good or bad for business and society is complicated. Used properly and respectfully, personally identifiable information (known as PII, in IT's acronym-loving way) can truly help companies deliver far better services. Amazon is perhaps the best example of a company that loves to leverage PII while being disciplined and restrained enough to (usually) not be obnoxious about it.

As for consumers, unless they really understand at a fairly sophisticated level how their information is to be used, most of them are not in a position to make the decisions about their own data that best serve their own interests.

As it turns out, though, the practical realities of IT spare us from having to make these decisions at a "what is best for society" level. That's because the only privacy call that can pragmatically work is to refuse from the get-go to let a company collect any of your personal data. The reason is that, once data is in a system, it really can't be removed -- at least not completely. It's as if the data has entered a Mobile IT Roach Motel: Data can check in, but it can never check out. (If you recognize the tagline from those iconic Roach Motel ads of the late 1970s, you can watch one on YouTube. But I should note that roaches don't seem to have it as bad as data: There is evidence that some German cockroaches have developed an aversion to glucose, which is used as bait in the traps, and are passing this trait on to their offspring. Yeah, I think it's safe to conclude that cockroaches will indeed outlive humans.)

Getting back to consumers, their data is really difficult to take back. It is not as if the data exists in only one place and can easily be deleted. That simply isn't how it works. Once duly authorized and collected, consumer data gets plugged into dozens of databases and shared with just as many departments, consultants and partners. The data is parsed and backed up, and the chances that anyone can accurately list every place where that data exists are roughly nil. That's why it's ludicrous to believe that you can change your mind and demand that all the data you let a company collect be removed. Block it initially? Sure. Get it back later? Not going to happen. There will always be copies floating out there somewhere.

And that's true even with the anonymous/aggregated approach. Yes, a company that aggregates the consumer data it collects only analyzes that data in the aggregate, and the aggregated data is anonymous. But all that data arrived in unaggregated form and far from anonymous, and that raw data certainly still exists in a database somewhere. Probably more than one, which brings you back to the question of how to corral all those data roaches that are running around the company's systems.

The cynical view of all this is that corporate advocates of privacy want to offer consumers the illusion of privacy control without having to deliver actual control, since the consumers have no way of knowing whether the data they have decided to "take back" has been actually removed. It's the business equivalent of the time-honored politician's trick of voting against a bill unpopular with constituents, knowing full well that it will pass anyway.

I can think of no practical way for a Wal-Mart, Exxon, Nabisco or Hilton to remove specific pieces of data once they've been absorbed. That means that corporations are going to have to stop making consumers privacy promises that they can't possibly keep. Assuming, of course, that you want to be honest. If you don't, that's something you really want to keep private.

Evan Schuman has covered IT issues for a lot longer than he'll ever admit. The founding editor of retail technology site StorefrontBacktalk, he's been a columnist for CBSNews.com, RetailWeek and eWeek. Evan can be reached at eschuman@thecontentfirm.com and he can be followed at twitter.com/eschuman. Look for his column every Tuesday.

Read more about privacy in Computerworld's Privacy Topic Center.


Follow Us

Join the New Zealand Reseller News newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags GooglesecurityorangeElectronic Frontier Foundationprivacy

Featured

Slideshows

Consegna comes to town with AWS cloud offerings launch in Auckland

Consegna comes to town with AWS cloud offerings launch in Auckland

Emerging start-up Consegna has officially launched its cloud offerings in the New Zealand market, through a kick-off event held at Seafarers Building in Auckland.​ Founded in June 2016, the Auckland-based business is backed by AWS and supported by a global team of cloud specialists, leveraging global managed services partnerships with Rackspace locally.

Consegna comes to town with AWS cloud offerings launch in Auckland
Veritas honours top performing trans-Tasman partners

Veritas honours top performing trans-Tasman partners

Veritas honoured its top performing partners across the channel in Australia and New Zealand, recognising innovation and excellence on both sides of the Tasman. Revealed under the Vivid lights in Sydney, Intalock claimed the coveted Partner of the Year 2017 (Pacific) award, with Data#3 acknowledged for 12 months of strong growth across the market. Meanwhile, Datacom took home the New Zealand honours, with Global Storage and Insentra winning service provider and consulting awards respectively. Dicker Data was recognised as the standout distributor of the year, while Hitachi Data Systems claimed the alliance partner award. Photos by Bob Seary.

Veritas honours top performing trans-Tasman partners
An Evening With Eugene Kaspersky for Kiwi partners in Auckland

An Evening With Eugene Kaspersky for Kiwi partners in Auckland

​New Zealand partners came together for An Evening With Eugene Kaspersky in Auckland, an invitation only event as part of Kaspersky Lab Partner Engage. Following an evening of insights and executive networking with the founder of Kaspersky Lab, Eugene Kaspersky, Kiwi partners got up close and personal with Eugene in an unprecedented​ panel discussion. Facilitated by Reseller News, this panel explored channel relationships, successful business strategies, and the latest ground breaking technologies to impact the security market. Photos by Maria Stefina.

An Evening With Eugene Kaspersky for Kiwi partners in Auckland
Show Comments