It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.

The Dangers of Data Mining

-- By BradEhrlichman - 17 Nov 2009

Introduction

Data mining empowers corporations to profile consumers cheaply and effectively. This profiling, in turn, leads to the exploitation and commoditization of customers under the guise of convenience and responsiveness. Given the twin dangers engendered by data mining – exploitation and commoditization – the need for consumer protection is clear. The yawning asymmetry of information between corporations profiting from data mining and consumers unaware of its practice or perniciousness places the burden of a solution on the former. However, it is naïve and impractical to expect corporations to abandon the practice out of charity or right-headedness. Further, it would be altogether draconian to expect consumers on their own to either educate themselves on the dangers of data mining and the methods of obstructing it, or to face its unwanted consequences. Thus, the government, in its most basic, Hobbesian role must both restrain the use of data mining while educating citizens of its practice and providing them with better mechanisms for easily and unequivocally opting out of the regime.

A Siren's Song

The primary menace of data mining lies in its ability to allow corporations to hit all the right notes in appealing to unwary consumers, thereby making every advertisement a siren’s song. Vague titillation has been replaced by targeted temptation, as advertisement – perhaps solicitation is the more apt term – is now directed at an audience of one. Anniversary fast approaching? Been looking into that dream Caribbean vacation? Well, check out these low, low rates that even you can afford. And, if you need a little money to bridge the gap, well, we can help you with that too. Of course, the uniformed consumer regards these offers not as dangerous, but as almost providential. He is being offered exactly what he’s looking for, shown just what he needed without ever really knowing he needed it. Like the oleander, however, the beauty is the danger. Consumers unthinkingly welcome the convenience and enticement of the perfectly tailored offers, and the corporations profit thereby. In effect, every consumer is like a wanderer lost in the desert, and data mining allows corporations to know the exact moment when he is so overcome by thirst that he will pay any price for a drink of water. As a further insult, the corporations posit data mining not only as benign, but as benevolent. For example, Google alerts its users (read: almost everyone with an internet connection) that: “We may combine the information you submit under your account with information from other Google services or third parties in order to provide you with a better experience and to improve the quality of our services.” Graciously, “for certain services, [Google] may give [its users] the opportunity to opt out of combining such information.” Data mining is presented as a service to consumers, a magnanimously provided convenience inuring to the benefit of those who cannot see the snake for the apple.

Pictures of You

The second identified danger of data mining is its reduction of individuals to commodities. As Jeffrey Rosen points out in this article, data mining represents not only an extreme invasion of privacy, but also a fracturing of individuality into a random survey of tastes, habits and purchases that are used to ensnare individuals-cum-consumers into a cycle of spending. There are two resulting problems. First, the dignity of individual human beings is degraded by an alchemy converting their tastes, passions and dreams into data used to separate them from their money. Once a human being is commoditized, it is easier to sell him carcinogenic products or ply him with debt from which he will never escape. Second, it is unlikely that any dissemination of purchases, wall posts and browsed websites can accurately and wholly limn the contours of an individual’s personality, status and situation. As this article demonstrates, data mining operates in broad strokes. Charging a bottle of water at Duane Reade may indicate a lack of available money, but it may also be the case that the purchaser finds – like I do – that paper burns a whole in his pocket faster than plastic, and thus prefers not to carry cash. However, data mining does not always provide for such subtle distinctions. Given, the decisions made by accumulators and analyzers of data mining identified by the article – denying credit, increasing interest rates – the dangers of such blanket and under-informed analysis are obvious.

Leviathan

The theory of social contract, roughly, posits that individuals cede freedom to a government in exchange for protection of their “life, health, liberty [and] possessions.” In the modern era, our possessions are no longer just threatened by marauders coming onto our land to steal our livestock or finery. As has been discussed, data mining may be used to deprive citizens of their possessions through an unconscionable pressure to buy, borrow or bargain. In the absence of an eleemosynary abandonment of data mining by corporations, it is the government’s place to restrict its use. Such restriction may be achieved through a federally mandated informed consent opt-in requirement coupled with an open-source statute. The informed consent opt-in requirement to data mining would protect consumers while respecting their autonomy, as well as mesh with familiar contract principles. Such a requirement, represented by a uniform, concise and explanatory terms of use would empower individuals to make knowledgeable decisions regarding dissemination of their private information while avoiding excessive nannyism. Also, the requirement would allow the parties to bargain more fairly. Corporations that sell information without individuals’ consent receive a windfall unknown to those individuals. An opt-in requirement would cause those corporations to ‘pay for’ that windfall. Moreover, an open-source statute mandating the publication of the internal code indicating how private data is shared after collection would further reduce the present asymmetry of information between corporations and individuals and additionally provide for informed bargaining.

Conclusion

Data mining allows corporations to exploit and commoditize individuals, thereby threatening individuals' autonomy and possessions. Thus, the government should require heightened transparency to allow individuals to protect their identity and property.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, BradEhrlichman

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list

---

I'm curious how you think government is going to be motivated to enact strong privacy legislation. It seems like all of the money and the power is in the hands of data miners. With such enormous commercial incentives to have loose privacy protections, wouldn't industry lobbyists be able to stop any Congressional proposals?

People just don't seem very fired up about privacy protection. Wouldn't something drastic need to happen to change that?

-- GavinSnyder - 29 Nov 2009

Thanks for the comment! I would answer your question in two ways. First, Congress seems to have already taken up the issue in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, that I have yet to link to in my article. Here is a link to the press release: GLB Act. Second, I think Professor Moglen was making the point in class a few weeks ago that something 'drastic' did happen to get people fired up about privacy protection; specifically, he seemed to argue (and my article agrees) that data mining was one of a number of causes of the recent financial crisis. Still, I agree with you that the organized power ostensibly lies with those opposed to privacy protections.

-- BradEhrlichman

Brad,

I hope you do not mind my commenting (and editing a link in your reply to Gavin). If you would like other comments, you might consider adding a comment box (just add the word %COMMENT% to the very bottom of the page if you do want such a box).

The reason I am commenting is because I agree with your analysis that the decline in privacy is significant, and as I have said elsewhere, I agree that opt-in is perhaps the most viable solution. But my bigger concern is, as Gavin suggested, that people just don't seem concerned about privacy loss. Have you run into much literature suggesting otherwise?

-- BrianS - 2 Dec 2009