Privacy: Active or Passive?

Privacy is a legitimate concern in the digital arena. While working away on our individual devices, it’s easy to feel like we are unseen in a remote, shadowed corner. In reality, we are each one of millions crammed into the playing field of a stadium, being observed by innumerable remote, shadowed third parties. Much of the concern about digital privacy centers around our perception of deception, or, as Manoush Zomorodi says in an interview about “the privacy paradox,” the sense that those following our online trails are being “creepy” rather than being “crappy.”

Our perceptions of ideal privacy may be better represented by the photo below, a child blazing her trail through a maze. In this visualization, autonomy is key. This child perceives and thus believes that she has full control over her path rather than that the path has been set for her by external factors. She has full control over what she reveals and what she conceals as she sets and pursues her course.

A key concept in a discussion about privacy, then, is voluntary sharing. We have more positive perceptions of data sharing when we voluntarily decide to share our information. Voluntary sharing, though, must be autonomous, and it must be an active election.

The problem with the privacy policies of many of our digital apps, then, is that clicking the “I agree” box in order to use the app’s functionality feels more like passive resignation.

I remember that, years ago, I opted into an online market research survey service. The service would send me periodic opportunities to take part in surveys, sponsored by various for-profit companies. I had control over whether I elected to participate in a survey, and I was rewarded with monetary credits for each survey I completed. My perception of this data sharing experience was positive—I was voluntarily taking part in this exchange of information for personal benefit. I was also fully aware of the data I was choosing to share through the survey I completed.

This model has changed. Today’s market research does feel a bit “creepy,” primarily because we are not fully aware of the data we are sharing. We perceive that we are passively sharing our information. Companies disclose the fact that they do collect information through the now widely recognized genre of the “privacy policy,” but there are still shadowy areas meant to keep users in the dark about what exactly these companies are concealing versus revealing.

This morning, I used my Panera mobile app to order a coffee. As I sat in the parking lot, I decided to look into some of the details of Panera’s privacy policy. Panera collects information in order to conduct routine transactions on the app, including name, geolocation, and financial payment details. Additionally, Panera reveals in its policy that it collects information “from third parties in order to supplement our existing information about you,” including “media and brand preferences, inferred interests, demographic information, purchase behavior, public online activities, and other information about you or your household.”

At this point, it becomes clear that Panera is part of a backchannel network of exchange that taps into social media and general Internet usage. Panera reveals in its policy that this behind-the-scenes collaboration uses analytics for marketing purposes, with the goal of “enhanc[ing] our customers’ and Service users’ experiences in our bakery-cafes” as well as “the sales efforts of Panera.”

So Panera receives information about user patterns of digital behaviors from third parties, and also participates in this exchange by providing discernments about our activity with Panera to other third-party partners. The existing web of information of exchange quickly feels out of control. If we have a perception of deception, we realize this too late. Our digital footprints are fossilized, even if we follow Panera’s (or any other app’s) opt-out procedures to prevent future tracking efforts. Reading through a privacy policy leads us to recognize that data gathering and sharing efforts are not only creepy, but also crappy. The damage is done.

Or is it?

The data-sharing game may have changed since the days of voluntarily responding to sponsored surveys, but we as users can still become active participants in data sharing and active creators of our online data sets.

Panera’s mobile app and many other mobile app privacy policies do include “Opt-Out Choices.” To participate in making active elections, follow the opt-out recommendations in these privacy policies. For instance, AppChoices allows users to opt out of certain data exchanges to limit ads. It is also possible to control geolocation data collection by adjusting settings on the mobile device.

In addition to the opt-out strategies that privacy policies like Panera’s do clue us into, we can be savvy about the information we choose to share on social media platforms, which often becomes third-party information that is exchanged with various companies like Panera. Abby Ohlheiser of The Washington Post posits that maintaining a social media account actually is “ensuring your active participation in letting the Internet learn more about you.” However, Ohlheiser suggests that, if we do choose to participate through social media, we can actively control information shared by using strategies such as deleting outdated accounts like MySpace, deleting outdated content on existing social media accounts, and creating “alternative facts” such as false birthdays.

In this new digital marketing arena, it’s important to recognize that we do have some autonomy over the data we share. Privacy policies are not necessarily user-friendly and can leave us feeling in the dark, but we cannot claim to be solely passive purveyors of our information. Reading privacy policies shines some light into those dark corners of backchannel information exchange. Clicking “I agree” is an active decision to jump into the game, and seeking out our opt-out rights is an active play on the field.