For Consumers, Data Privacy Is A Personal Issue

While the deciding day for the presidential election is still several months away, the debate season is in full swing for both major parties. As usual, topics of discussion range from the militaristic to the economical, but more than one candidate has found the time to include a few comments on technology, data encryption and what right the government does or should have to peek into private records when deemed necessary.

“There is a big problem,” Ohio Governor John Kasich said in a Dec. 16 Republican primary debate, as quoted by Fortune. “It’s called encryption … We have to solve the encryption problem. It is not easy.”

“We should be using our brilliant people, our most brilliant minds to figure a way that ISIS cannot use the Internet,” Donald Trump said in the same debate. “And then on second, we should be able to penetrate the Internet and find out exactly where ISIS is and everything about ISIS.”

While it should go without saying that “penetrating the Internet” is a gross oversimplification of what tracking or jamming social media activity might entail, it’s striking that half of a political field, including Trump – the leading Republican candidate – would steadfastly embrace increased data monitoring and lessened protections on digital privacy. Regardless of political leanings, there would seem to be little support for the idea in consumer circles, such as giving retailers unfettered access to personal information — so what gives with the rampant support for increased government surveillance of data?

The answer, according to a recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center, isn’t any more conclusive, because when it comes to how much the average American cares about data privacy, it depends heavily on the circumstances.

It may actually be more apt to describe the average consumer’s choice to waive rights to data privacy with brands as a complex risk-reward decision-making process affected at the very least by the parties collecting information and the benefits for doing so. In the study, Pew researchers presented participants with six distinct circumstances in which third parties might ask for access to sensitive information:

  1. An employer wants to install face-tracking technology to cut down on workplace theft and potentially use the data to improve office attendance and performance.
  2. A doctor’s office wants patients to opt-in to a digital system that would access their health records in exchange for reminders on appointments and medications.
  3. A grocery stores offers shoppers a free rewards card that gives them automatic cash back on all purchases, but pulls and sells info on consumer habits to advertisers.
  4. A car insurance company wants to install sensors in drivers’ vehicles that track safe driving habits, and customers can earn discounts based on their records.
  5. Users’ former high schools have started a social networking site that is free to join and will help users reconnect specifically with their old friends, but advertisers will use their activity to send targeted offers.
  6. A smart thermostat vendor wants to install the inexpensive products in homes to save owners money on utility bills, but the thermostats would also gather information including when people enter and exit rooms and when basic functions are performed (i.e. raising and lowering heat).

While one might expect some degree of consistency in public opinion related to data privacy, Pew found that the only comparably consistent response from participants on whether they’d relinquish their rights was “it depends.” That category bottomed out at 15 percent of respondents (for the high school social network) and peaked at 21 percent (for the office face-tracking system). That same privacy bargain was deemed “acceptable” by 54 percent of participants – the largest such group – while 55 percent agreed that a human-sensing smart thermostat in their homes was “not acceptable.”

So if consumers are constantly weighing the benefits of handing over the keys to their digital identity vaults against the risks of that information being used to complicate their lives, what can brands do to make sure that exchange always ends without customers deleting accounts or blocking newsletters? According to one respondent who explained why he didn’t care too much about the risks of free services, one possible answer could be to reduce the initial costs for joining a service so there’s nothing but an upside to shoppers.

“To be honest, I don’t really care [about data privacy],” the man told Pew. “That is especially the case when I voluntarily use a service in return for giving up some information. For example, I use Gmail for free, but I know that Google will capture some information in return. I’m fine with that.”

It’s in brands’ best interests then to keep their consumers not only happy with their experiences, but comfortable with the payoff they’re getting for trading away their personal information. However, with data encryption acting as a bigger political issue today than it has been in years prior, could the addition of government surveillance into an area where consumer confidence is far from rock solid rock an unsteady boat?

According to Apple CEO Tim Cook in an interview with 60 Minutes, the solution for the private sector is to keep regulatory hands, ones that don’t have to gamble with consumer satisfaction, out of the equation.

“There have been people that suggest that we should have a back door. But the reality is if you put a back door in, that back door’s for everybody, for good guys and bad guys,” Cook said. “I don’t believe that the trade-off here is privacy versus national security. I think that’s an overly simplistic view.”