One of the great themes of our “social media future” discussion was “privacy” and the ultimate stand we hope people would take to keep companies (like the mythical Skynet) from abusing personal data.  I thought a lot about this and Easter Island came to mind.

Easter Island is the one of the most remote and desolate places on Earth and is home to the mysterious moai statues.  Although just a speck of a place, centuries ago the island had two competing tribes. The ruler of each tribe would build larger and larger temples and more moai in his honor, trying to out-do the ruler on the other side of the island for glory.

Over several generations, the lush palm forests on the island began disappearing as the tribes rapidly used this extremely limited resource for temples and construction of the massive stone faces. Remember, there was literally no place to go for more wood.

Within a few generations, every single stick of wood on the island had been consumed.  Researchers think this was probably the leading cause of the collapse of the native civilization.

You might wonder, “How could they be so stupid?”  Part of the answer is in the fact that they didn’t realize they were doing it.  The children became accustomed to the idea of an island with fewer trees.  They didn’t have videos and digital photos to document what the place used to look like.  And then the next generation only knew a world with even fewer trees, and so on.

Like a lobster slowly being killed in a boiling pot of water, generation after generation became accustomed to an increasingly de-forested landscape because they didn’t know a different reality ever existed!

Could this phenomenon happen again?

Today, personal information is being served up by our nearly constant digital footprint.  Our grandparents would probably be mortified by what we post every day and the record we’re creating for permanent, global dissection. It’s just what we do.  We call it the social web and we love it.

But the heat is turning up and already we can see that the privacy pot just might boil.  Will the next generation even know, let alone care?    Today’s teens are conditioned to accept highly targeted and intrusive ads as the norm, part of the cost of the experience.  As long as a cool, free good or service outweighs the incremental intrusiveness of a privacy intervention, people will be happy to go along.  If we fast-forward 10 years, would we be horrified by the personal freedoms that have been abdicated for instant gratification?

Perhaps our children and grandchildren will be conditioned to slowly, inexorably, willingly abandon their freedom, never realizing they are in the process of being boiled.  At least until they meet John Conner.*   : )

What do you think?  Lobster anyone?

* In the Terminator movies, John Conner was the hero who battled evil Skynet, a company who unleashed human-destroying machines on the world.  Skynet is also a telecommunications company in Europe. I don’t think they are one and the same, but time will tell.

18 Comments

• 

  By Kimmo Linkama, December 9, 2009 @ 3:16 am

  Yes, I’m sure this is the way we’re going. People will increasingly regard the invasion of their privacy as a given, never realizing they have given a permission to do that for instant gratification at some point in time when the pros of giving that permission seemed to outweigh the cons.

  Exceptions will be those people who run into difficulties when they get into trouble: they are beginning to get overwhelmed by the volume of commercial information or, more importantly, they find their online data has been used to profile them in ways that are detrimental to them, such as preventing access to some information or shutting them out of applying for a certain job.

  I think the main problem in this realm is that exposing yourself has, chiefly for commercial reasons, been made so much easier than maintaining your privacy. As I pointed out in my comment to the original future post, the development will probably lead to a rapid proliferation of privacy applications, a whole new area of making money.

  The downside will probably be that people will in practice have two options, 1) expose themselves for free or 2) maintain their privacy for a fee.

  Legislators will at some point wake up to this problem, but as we already know, many people will volunteer to waive their rights.

  Where it gets murky is that if governments, for example, will be able to combine personal data from a number of databases, there’s always the chance of mis-profiling or malicious use, which can lead to consequences much graver than having to deal with spam messages.
• 

  By Mark, December 9, 2009 @ 7:12 am

  @Kimmo I think the other thing that could turn the tide would be some horrible mistake (like the loss of a datbase to terrorists) or something.

  Thanks for the insights!
• 

  By Joseph Fiore, December 9, 2009 @ 9:07 am

  I think the courts might have some say in the way privacy is perceived. As it is, courts tend to be regarded as the last bastion of hope in the lawless ways of the social Web. But is certainly some room for bigger bite as far as matters of more serious transgression is concerned.

  The Easter Island example brought to mind this documentary I saw by Jacques Cousteau’s Son who started this movement to save the oceans after he compared deep dive film from when his Father was doing his research some 20 years ago to some video footage he had taken at the exact same oceanic location of past expeditions. The way the video compares ocean life back then to now is shocking, dramatic, and makes you realize the damage that’s been done by boats, the environment and illegal fishing practices.

  Watching this documentary strangely made me consider the way we consume information and the choices we make to act on it. It also allowed me to consider how the information we post online will likely outlast us (and with it are serious implications on the way we conduct ourselves), but that unless someone is motivated to sift through the archives and map our digital footprints in a meaningful way, it doesn’t stand any chance of being used simply because of the way the Web purges, recycles and inundates us with data.

  Still keeping with this concept, technology overwhelms us through the advancement aspect alone. The best example of this is how I can look through volumes of book bindings on a library shelf to cite or recall an idea or opinion, but can’t do the same with an old PC or hard-drive I’ve shelfed whenever I’ve found the need to upgrade my computer.

  Joseph
  @RepuTrack
• 

  By Steve Dodd, December 9, 2009 @ 9:48 am

  @mark – Spectacular analogy! And, I unfortunately agree that only when there is a disaster will people actually deal with this. Legislation will never solve the problem. It’s always designed to address something that has happened, not something that will. Furthermore, there are those out there who’s focus is to “get around” legislation while still obeying the rules, not adhere to its fundamental intent. As an example, Identity Theft (although always illegal) never became a public issue until the economic damage could no longer be hidden or excused as an anomaly.
• 

  By autom, December 9, 2009 @ 11:46 am

  the analogy you propose appears to speak to inadvertent cultural desensitization—and, obviously, subsequent adaptation—as a result of environmentally induced changes (Easter Island), and then you segued right into a lobster being cooked (presumably not knowing it’s being turned into bisque?) ? Rock Lobster!..Down..Down.. ? (The B52’s)

  in any event, the premise alludes to how the social web’s frenzied pace (in particular among the younger generation) is fast becoming a ‘desensitized’ process of how we produce and consume information. generally, i would agree that the recent ‘mainstreaming’ and widespread penetration of social media have revealed tendencies in certain online behaviours that exhibit excessive sharing to the point of overstimulation. ironically, in the spirit of democratizing information, level playing fields, breaking barriers to entry and the entire open movement, “excessive sharing” may easily be viewed as a contradiction in terms. sharing is what it is, excessive or not.

  as with the matter of privacy, and from someone who lives in a country where the federal privacy commissioner’s authority can provoke explicit reaction and action from info-hording social powerhouses like Facebook, i feel confident that there won’t be a gushing lovefest honouring ‘Skynet’ too too soon.

  although the question this post ultimately begs is indeed a valid one: do we have a sense that there is a majority among the collective social conscious (a) mindful and vigilant of the checks and balances that shape the evolution of online social behaviours to the extent that they can effectively guard our privacy, civil liberties, etc. and (b) proactive, visible and authoritative enough to (i) detect clear symptoms of modes of communications that pose profound. long-term threats to privacy and (ii) enable tangible action to assess, mitigate and resolve such threats accordingly?

  you don’t hear a lobster saying (à la Arnold) “I’ll be back”..bisque is yummy btw
• 

  By Mark, December 9, 2009 @ 12:28 pm

  @Autom “inadvertent cultural desensitization” … an awesome way to put it. I will steal that.

  I’m simplistic when it comes to the checks and balances you discuss. This is how I think it will go:

  If people perceive the economic benefit (which can also be something intangible like “being cool”) outweighs the perceived risk of an incremental loss of privacy, “Skynet” will have its way and privacy and freedom will erode.

  If that economic equation stays in balance for the majority of the people, the government will stay out of the way and whatever happens, happens … even if it’s something we perceive as “scary” right now.

  I see this happening in so many other parts of the society. Joseph (above) used the wonderful illustration of environmental impact on the sea.

  If a majority of people perceive the benefits of pollution outweighing the outcomes we will continue to do so (and that is happening in Third World countries where pollution = eating).

  I really think the equation is that simple, and that complicated. When you get down to it, it’s not government that directly produces change, or TV ads, or interest groups. It’s the collective economic consequences on a society.
• 

  By Mark, December 9, 2009 @ 12:33 pm

  P.S. Is it just me or has this blog become way too serious lately? I think it’s time for a joke.

  Why did the chicken cross the road?

  To show the opossum that it COULD BE DONE!

  You probably have to be a Southerner to appreciate that but it’s the best I could do on a deadline.

  You may now return to your regularly-scheduled blog commentary.
• 

  By autom, December 9, 2009 @ 1:22 pm

  no such thing as being ‘too serious’ when examining the dynamics of social behaviour, technological evolution and governance.

  and no i don’t have to be a Southerner to appreciate that joke..’cause luckily i know a chicken is. haha
• 

  By Steve Dodd, December 9, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

  @mark. You’re saying it all comes down to money?
• 

  By MiChmski, December 9, 2009 @ 2:05 pm

  Interesting reflection, Mark. This post makes me think of a book I read by Bernard Werber, “Le Papillon des Etoiles”, in which 140,000 people set out in search of another planet that would take them 50 generations to reach. By the time they had gotten there, humanity had reverted back to its caveman days.

  There is no doubt that technology is advancing exponentially, and it does bring to mind certain Atlantis-like scenarios.

  Social technology is incredibly encouraging in its possibilities, but it is frightening as well by those same possibilities. Whatever one group may use to collaborate for higher goals, another may use for harmful activities – beyond the scope of intrusive advertisements.
  Thanks for this post, Mark; very thoughtful, as usual.

  Best,
  Michelle
• 

  By Mark, December 9, 2009 @ 2:12 pm

  @steve not money. economic gain of some kind (as I said the economic good could be “being cool” for example. what else can elicit massive social changes? Economics is eventually what topples kings, drives innovation, builds cities, and reverses bad stuff like pollution.

  People will embrace change when there is a financial, psychological or physical benefit for them. When enough of that occurs, massive change happens. IMO any way.
• 

  By Lisa Foote, December 9, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

  Don’t discount the Fear Factor.

  Consider this: a stalking case (or, God forbid, worse) made possible by only by publicly-shared information grabs everyone’s attention in 2010, bringing the privacy bisque to full boil. Tens of thousands leave Facebook, demanding complete erasure of their information. Social media adoption is greatly slowed.

  Just a conjecture, but I’m surprised we haven’t seen something really nasty up to now. (And certainly hope we never do of course!)
• 

  By Mark, December 9, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

  Where corruption can occur, corruption will occur. It will happen.
• 

  By Steve Dodd, December 9, 2009 @ 10:23 pm

  @Mark and Lisa I’ve got to agree with your thinking on this. As always, some catastrophic event needs to occur before the solution becomes important. If people pull out in mass quantities, the business models will begin to fail and they’ll be forced to fix it or go out of business.
  And you are right, it will happen. In fact I suspect it already is escalating, we just don’t know about it yet.
• 

  By Neicole Crepeau, December 10, 2009 @ 4:10 pm

  I think you’re right that we will continue to give more and more information away, and for the most part not have a problem with it. I expect there will be legislation that will require users have the ability to see and control what information is available, to some degree. But chances are that the default will allow companies to gather and use the information unless users proactively opt-out of portions.
  I don’t necessarily see a problem with all of that on the advertising/marketing side. If I have to see ads, I’d rather they were relevant. And I think the key point is, as you say, whether the goods and services outweigh the privacy invasion. If so, it’s worth it to the consumer to give up information. I believe there will be consumer pressures on the advertisers and marketers to use the information in better ways, though. Ad blindness is only going to increase, as is the user tendency to avoid sites with pop-up ads or where advertising/marketing is done obnoxiously. On the other hand, they will respond well to advertising and marketing techniques that provide value for them: whether as entertainment, discounts, or ad targeting that is consistently timely, relevant, and accesssible. Studies have shown that younger people are more willing to opt-in. For them, it’s all a tradeoff. It’ll be up to businesses to make the tradeoff worth their while.
• 

  By Sean Williams, December 11, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

  Holy Smokes, Mark — yeow. Can you say, “worst fears realized”?

  Honestly, there are times when I just want to fling my wooden shoes into the social media machinery… (twice today that I get to use obscure references…I did the same thing at a panel today).

  There either has to be a jaw-dropping, disastrous breach, or a significant enough backlash that takes root among the conspiracy theorists, with sufficient media attention (both mainstream and social) to grab adherents. Just ask Amanda Chapel about this topic to get an earful!
• 

  By Krystal, March 14, 2010 @ 6:20 pm

  Thanks for sharing this link, Mark! You’ve definitely got your finger on a pulse here with this connection–it’s an apt means of considering how we are acclimating to the demands of the social web. And the looming dangers if we consider to rush headfirst into the Web 2.0. What’s interesting to me is that the so-called public lessons (e.g., Cisco Fatty) has not dissuaded people from sharing or over-sharing with strangers. I am still having trouble adjusting to Twitter and the random people who choose to follow me. On the one hand, I’m making connections I might never make otherwise, on the other hand who are these people and why are they so interested in what I have to say? And how are they using that information? I’m sure my grandchildren will have no problem with this.
• 

  By Mark, March 15, 2010 @ 11:27 am

  @Krystal This made me laugh as I thought about my reaction when “strangers” started following me on Twitter. Completely freaked me out. Now it’s a blast : )

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment