A favourite term of economic rationalists is ‘externality’. In economics, an externality is a cost or unexpected consequence of a new form of activity. The problem with most externalities is that they usually arrive after the fact, once the new behaviour has already set in and been widely distributed. In addition to this, externalities aren’t usually priced into the market or regulated in the short term. They tend to become the focus of heated political debate sometime after the innovation that led to them. Environmental pollution was the core externality of the industrial era. Many claim that the erosion of privacy and the emerging data industrial complex are the pollution of the technology revolution.

Digital footprints

The mobile revolution has enabled some supposedly new forms of human behaviour. The ability to leave a footprint of everywhere we go is one of these. We now have the ability, intended or not, to geo-locate ourselves. We can share whatever we think, do and buy, and wherever we go. While these footprints are left with most of our digital-based activities, the footprints themselves are not like those we leave on the beach. First, digital footprints are hard to see because there are so many of them. But we need to remember they rarely get washed away, and someone else owns the beach. It leaves us with a set of circumstances that seem, on first impression, like a first for humanity: the end of privacy.

A lot of non-digital natives believe the concept of checking in, or sharing personal activity live on the web, is kind of weird. They believe the mobile web is going too far. The truth is that this form of human behaviour is not new. It’s just a new form of existing human behaviour that hasn’t changed much in millennia. There’s a belief that these new forms of immediate digital connection are putting the private lives of all people into question. But there’s a simple fact about privacy that straddles all communication, and it’s this:

The ideas of communication and privacy are naturally juxtaposed with each other.

If we look at this more closely, we come to understand that every iteration in our ability to communicate takes away an equal amount of privacy. The reason we continue to choose connection over privacy is simple:

Improved communication improves the living standards of our species.

Geo-locating isn’t weird

We’ve had and used maps for centuries to guide us. Even the simple idea of a cave painting or a book is a form of geo-locating. It’s telling a story of what we saw, or what we found, or where we were. There is no doubt that these forms of documenting our experiences seemed weird when they first arrived. The only difference with a geo-locating mobile device is that it has improved accuracy and immediacy. In fact, all iterations of documentation of events have done the same thing — they’ve become more accurate, distributed and immediate. The trajectory of where communications is going hasn’t changed — better, faster, cheaper and more available. Geo-locating is merely another technological curve jump, a moment of ‘wow, this is way more accurate and available’.

A history of privacy concerns

Having privacy concerns about new forms of communication is not a new thing. When street numbers were first introduced in the Austro-Hungarian empire in the early nineteenth century there were riots in the streets. Segments of the population were up in arms and fought against the government for making public where they lived. In the end, when people decided they wanted their mail delivered more than they cared about where they lived being a known quantity, things quietened down.

We can add to this a long list of privacy erosions whereby the end benefits outweighed the losses, creating a largely opt-in society. See table 19.1.

This list could be much longer, but it provides a clear path that shows that we’ll gladly hand over personal information when the benefits to us are greater than the cost of the losses, something business needs to remind itself of in a data-rich world. If the benefit of participation isn’t worth it, people will remove themselves. What digital brands such as social media must remember is that, often, what they provide doesn’t have the monopoly powers of government tracking innovations and many other privacy eroders, so how those in the data business behave will become a significant brand health measurement in the future. In a digital society with many connection options, there are often low barriers for exiting. Social media is one such example, especially given it’s in the substitution phase of its existence, rather than the void-filling stage.

Types of privacy

In reality, our formerly non–digital enabled papers (or documents), such as passports and driver licences, are being digified. Opting out of data trails is turning into an opting-out-of-civilisation kind of choice.

There are really two forms of privacy: what you do in your personal life and what you do as part of community participation.

Privacy vs secrecy

Our increasingly public lives through digital living raises important questions about secrecy. What everyone tends to forget is the difference between secrecy and privacy. They’re not the same. Privacy and secrecy are totally different things. Most things that are private are not secrets. But they are intimate, sensitive and of a nature that in most cases doesn’t concern others. We all know what happens when we go to the bathroom and we all know how our parents made us. Neither of these is a secret, but they need to remain private. Much of what we do online — which is now a natural part of our evolved human conversation — is private. And that’s how they should remain.

What we, as the owners and constituents living inside the technology, need to do is create a society that has regulations which are above any government organisations. We need to create a digital culture that clearly delineates between privacy and secrets. We need to create boundaries around our digital infrastructure where privacy is not invaded on demand by authorities, just in case they find a secret (a relevant secret at that). The only way it will happen is if the majority stands up and lets the authorities know it wants a new set of boundaries. It isn’t without a small amount of irony that the tools that need to be reviewed are the ones we need to use to create the boundaries we want. Isn’t that what civilised societies do: set boundaries that create a better, safer, fairer society? If we fail to create this delineation between secrecy and privacy, our basic, important, intellectual and progressive freedoms are at risk. What’s made public should surely be the choice of the publisher. A one-to-one digital communication should remain as such. Information sent to a service provider should also remain as such.

Industries being impacted by technology to the point where our entire lives become public tells us that business is becoming inextricably linked to technology.