Personal vs Public: Rethinking Privacy

Posted on March 24, 2015 by Content in Context

An incident I recently witnessed in my neighbourhood has caused to me to rethink how we should be defining “privacy”. Data protection is one thing, but when our privacy can be compromised via the direct connection between the digital and analog worlds, all the cyber security in the world doesn’t protect us against unwanted nuisance, intrusion or even invasion of our personal space.

Scenario

As I was walking along the street, I saw another pedestrian stop outside a house, and from the pavement, use her smart phone to take a photograph through the open bedroom window. Regardless of who was inside, and irrespective of what they were doing (assuming nothing illegal was occurring), I would consider this to be an invasion of privacy.

For example, it would be very easy to share the picture via social media, along with date and location data. From there, it could be possible to search land registries and other public records to ascertain the identity of the owners and/or occupants. And with a little more effort, you might have enough information to stalk or even cyber-bully them.

Privacy Law

Photographing people on private property (e.g., in their home) from public property (e.g., on the street outside) is not an offence, although photographers must not cause a nuisance nor interfere with the occupants’ right of quiet enjoyment. Our current privacy laws largely exclude this breach of privacy (unless it relates to disclosure of personal data by a regulated entity). Even rules about the use of drones are driven by safety rather than privacy concerns.

Since the late 1990’s, and the advent of spam and internet hacking, there have been court decisions that update the law of trespass to include what could be defined as “digital trespass”, although some judges have since tried to limit such actions to instances where actual harm or damage has been inflicted on the plaintiff. (Interestingly, in Australia, an act of trespass does not have to be “intentional”, merely “negligent”.)

Apart from economic and financial loss that can arise from internet fraud and identity theft, invasion of privacy via public disclosure of personal data could lead to personal embarrassment, damage to reputation or even ostracism. (In legal terms emotional stress falls within “pain and suffering”).

Data Protection Law

The Australian Privacy Principles contained within the 1988 Privacy Act apply to government agencies, private companies with annual turnover of $3m or more, and any organisations trading in personal data, dealing with credit information or providing health services. There are specific provisions relating to the use and misuse of government-derived identifiers such as medical records and tax file numbers.

The main purpose of the privacy legislation is to protect “sensitive” information, and to prevent such data being used unlawfully to identify specific individuals. At a minimum, this means keeping personal data such as dates of birth, financial records or hospital files in a secure format.

Some Practical Definitions

The following are not legal definitions, but hopefully offer a practical framework to understand how we might categorise such data, and manage our obligations towards it:

“Confidential”

Secret information that must not be disclosed to anyone unless there is a legal obligation or permission to do so. (There are also specific issues and exceptions relating to “classified information”, public interest matters, whistleblower protection and Freedom of Information requests.)

“Private”

Information which is not for public or general consumption, although the data itself may not be “confidential”. May still be subject to legal protection or rights, such as the right of adopted children to discover the identity of their birth parents, or the right of someone not to be identified as a lottery winner.

“Personal”

Data that relates to, or can specifically identify a particular individual. An increasing issue for Big Data, because data that otherwise resides in separate locations can now be re-connected using triangulation techniques – scrape enough websites and drill down into enough databases, and you could probably find my shoe size.

“Public”

Anything that has been published, or easily discoverable through open search or public database retrieval (but, for example, does not include my past transactions on eBay unless I have chosen to disclose them to other users). My date of birth may be a matter of record, but unless you have authorised access to the relevant database or registry, you won’t be able to discover it and you certainly shouldn’t disclose it without my permission.

Copyright Law

One further dimension to the debate is copyright law – the ownership and related rights associated with any creative works, including photographs. All original content is copyright (except those works deemed to be in the “public domain”), and nearly all copyright vests with the person who created the work (unless they have legally assigned their copyright, or the material was created in the course of their employment).

In the scenario described above, the photographer would hold copyright in the picture they took. However, if the photograph included the image of an artwork or even a framed letter hanging on the wall, they could not reproduce the photograph without the permission of the person who owned the copyright in those original works. In some (limited) situations, a photograph of a building may be subject to the architect’s copyright in the design.

Curiosity is not enough justification to share

My personal view on all this is that unless there is a compelling reason to make something public, protecting our personal privacy takes precedent over the need to post, share or upload pictures of other people in their private residence, especially any images taken without the occupants’ knowledge or permission.

Just to clarify, I’m not referring to surveillance and monitoring by the security services and law enforcement agencies, for which there are understandable motives (and appropriate safeguards).

I’m saying that if we showed a little more respect for each others’ personal space and privacy (particularly within our homes, not just in cyberspace) then we might show a little more consideration to our neighbours and fellow citizens.

Next week: It’s OK to say “I don’t know”

AngelCube15 – has your #startup got what it takes?

Posted on March 10, 2015 by Content in Context

Startup Victoria‘s first Lean Startup meeting of the year heralded the launch of AngelCube‘s 2015 accelerator program (#AC15), for which applications are now open. A good opportunity to check in with previous successful applicants, and find out if your startup is made of the right stuff.

The info evening was hosted by inspire9, and supported by PwC, and Nathan from AngelCube kicked off proceedings by giving a run down on the accelerator program, the application process, and the type of startups that are more likely to be accepted.

What does the program offer?

A 3-month intensive learning and development experience
$20k in funding (in return for 10% of the business)
Co-working facilities
Working with Lean methodology (focus on Product-Market fit)
Access to great mentors and advisers, and early-stage investors
Participation in a fundraising roadshow (including time in the US)

There is an application form via AngelList, and the closing date is May 10 (but the sooner you can submit the better). From the hundreds of applications, AngelCube puts together a shortlist of 20, of which no more than 10 will likely be accepted.

What is AngelCube looking for?

Globally scalable tech startups (think beyond Australia!)
In-house tech skills/resources (it’s not really a matching service)
Great teams (more than the ideas themselves)
Customer traction (ideally revenue-generating)
Consumer-oriented solutions (rather than B2B)

What has the experience been like for successful graduates?

Three alumni of previous AngelCube programs offered some personal insights, and then participated in a Q&A with the audience of 400:

First up was Peter from Ediply, a service that matches students to the course or university of their choice. Given the growth in education and lifelong learning, and the increasing numbers of students (especially from Asia) looking to study overseas, the business seemed like a natural fit for AngelCube. However, it was still a relatively new or unknown sector in terms of end-user or independent services (rather than in-house marketing and enrollment efforts) – which sort of broke one of AngelCube’s rules for acceptance: no established market. Peter stressed that the main reasons for applying were the need to overcome some development barriers, and to get out of a “Melbourne mindset”.

Ash from Tablo (“YouTube for books”) probably broke another AngelCube rule, in that he was a sole applicant (not part of a team) and he had limited tech resources. AngelCube made him work harder, think big, and keep going – and helped him to become a disruptive force in publishing, with customers in 130 countries collectively publishing 1 million words a day. He’s also closed a C-round of funding, and has some impressive investors on his share register.

Lastly, David from etaskr (“a private label elance”) had to quit a full-time job with one week’s notice once he got accepted into AngelCube. He even had to Google how to pitch. Plus he came into the program with a totally different idea, got slammed, failed to get customer traction, and ended up pivoting to an enterprise software solution (and broke another AngelCube rule in the process – no B2B, because of the longer sales cycle). Despite having to live on very little money for 6 months (less than $200 pw) the team persevered, and are now starting to get traction, including overseas markets like Holland. His final words were “risk is not something to fear, but to overcome”.

Q&A with the audience

Most of the questions were about the application process for AngelCube, and how it helped the successful startups, particularly with going global. In large part, this due to some great networks, access to high-profile connections (“we got to meet the first employees at Yammer!”) and links to some influential investors. There was also some discussion about how to secure your first customers (mainly via social marketing techniques), and the challenge of enterprise sales (“it sucks, because you need 100 different minds to all say ‘Yes!'”).

Finally, for more insights, please visit these links to previous posts about AngelCube and some of the successful applicants.)

Next week: Help! I need to get some perspective…

The Great #Data Overload Part 3: Differentiating in a #Digital World

Posted on February 17, 2015 by Content in Context

Have you noticed that what was once old is new again? In particular, I’m talking about traditional direct marketing techniques, such as door-to-door sales, print circulars, and telephone cold calling. It’s as if businesses realise that to be heard and to get noticed in the digital world, you have to do something different or unexpected, and nobody expects to see a door-to-door salesperson these days!

I mostly work from a home office, and in recent months I have had door-knockers trying to sell me car tyres, energy-saving devices and fire extinguishers. That’s in addition to the telesales calls persuading me to switch phone and utility providers, take out insurance or upgrade my security software (yes, I know that last one is probably a scam). Plus, more and more local businesses and tradespeople are using good old-fashioned leaflets and letter box drops (which is interesting, given that around 58% of local search is done on a mobile device).

Why are some advertisers reverting to this form of direct marketing?

I can think of several reasons:

They need to cut through the digital noise and reach their target audience via “novel” promotional tactics.
Their products and services are less-suited to on-line or in-app purchasing decisions.
Their sales activities are focused on acquiring existing customers from competitors, a conversion process more likely to succeed via personal contact.
Or simply, the costs make more sense.

Why is it important to differentiate?

It’s 10 years since “Blue Ocean Strategy” was published, which stressed the need to stand apart from your competition (“avoid the shark-infested waters”). The message is even more relevant today, because the ubiquity of social media and content marketing platforms means that everyone has access to the same tools, and it’s not that difficult to play technology catch up; and while there may be good reasons for your business to engage with these channels to market, you also need some alternatives, like offering direct customer engagement that is not wholly reliant upon on-line and digital. That’s why some banks are opening more branches as part of their growth and customer acquisition strategy, why some retailers are offering “buy on-line, collect in-store”, and why some service companies are moving to an integrated, end-to-end customer experience, so that customers get the same person helping to resolve their problem from start to finish.

How to differentiate?

Standing out from the crowd (for the right reasons!) is critical to attracting customer attention. Competing on price alone is typically a race to the bottom where nobody wins. Getting noticed, especially when everyone is using the same marketing tools and sales offers, may mean doing something unusual or unexpected (for example, ALDI‘s “anti-ads”) as part of your marketing campaign. Or connecting directly with your audience in a way that doesn’t rely on “Likes”, “Shares” or “Follows”.

Sometimes it’s as simple as as this leaflet (shown above) found in my letter box the other day. At first, I thought it was a flyer for a local bar. Then, I noticed it was promoting a new smart phone app. On closer inspection, the flyer comprised a printed sheet hand-pasted onto a page torn from a magazine. That’s a lot of manual effort to promote a digital product, but using a lo-tech solution that totally makes sense! (No doubt, it appeals to the hipster crowd, ’cause retro’s cool, right?) So, the element of surprise (if that was the intention) worked – it got my attention because I wouldn’t have expected to receive a leaflet for a new app.*

Next week: “Why? Because we’ve always done it this way…”

Notes

* For an interesting story on the power of the unexpected, see Adam Posner’s talk on customer loyalty programs.

The Great #Data Overload Part 2: Is #Digital Making Us Dumber?

Posted on February 10, 2015 by Content in Context

The pursuit of digital (and by implication, many data-related activities) is making us dumber. Whether it’s constant multi-tasking, the need for instant gratification, the compulsion to always be “on”, or the ease of access to content and connections, there’s actually a law of diminishing returns in trying to capture and engage with all this “stuff”.

Consequently, our decision-making is increasingly governed by a hair-trigger mechanism – a single-click here, a right-swipe there, a “Like”/”Share” here, there, everywhere – which makes the outcome far less important than the instantaneous and self-validating process (“I Tweet therefore I am”). The quality of our interactions and relationships risks being reduced to a single lowest common denominator of the “fear of missing out” (#FoMo).

Current business practises focus on lean, agile and flexible – meaning that we have to get used to operating in a rapidly moving environment. However, agility is not helped by either procrastination or rash calls.

Faced with these demands on our attention, how can we come to a truly informed opinion or considered conclusion? The trick is knowing whether or not you are required to respond (not everything is relevant, vital or critical that it needs your constant or immediate participation – sometimes silence is golden). If you must make a call, then know when you have enough (hopefully, the “right”) data to make a rational and reasonable decision.

How do we build a capacity for calm, considered and constructive engagement with the digital world?

Part of the challenge is changing our (recently acquired) habits and behaviours. Speaking to friends and colleagues, there is a growing realization that reaching for your smart phone just before going to sleep (or as soon as you wake up), or constantly checking for status updates, is a noxious habit. Apart from the impact it has on our brain activity, it is also reinforcing our belief that this is normal, that we are somehow subservient to these devices, and that interacting with the digital environment takes priority over everything else. I know, I’m as guilty as the next person (watching the tennis on TV while checking the cricket scores on my iPhone…), but I am also trying to be more critical of my own digital consumption:

Not responding immediately to every e-mail – this is about time management skills as much as anything else; the faster you respond, the more you raise expectations that you will always answer straightway
Unsubscribing to mailing lists – in recent weeks, I have been unsubscribing to various newsletters because I was simply no longer interested in them or because they were no longer useful; if something’s important enough, I’ll no doubt find out about it from another source
Being selective about social media – I’ve written about this before in the context of authenticity and personal branding; in short, I find it essential to use different social media tools for different purposes (and to use each tool differently). That way, I manage to keep some separation between various parts of my professional and personal lives – at the very least, it acts as a helpful filter between the public and private
Choosing on-line connections carefully – this is another topic I have covered in a previous blog; not all our interactions are equal, and other than some basic relationship filters, most social network platforms don’t allow us to distinguish between friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and someone we met at a conference.* So, I generally decline unsolicited “friend” requests if I have not actually met or interacted with the person previously, or if I cannot find relevant mutual connections, or if I do not see what value I can add by being connected to this person.
Limiting notifications and status updates – similar to managing in-bound e-mail, I tend to switch off/ignore real-time notifications and updates. Instead, I prefer to check-in no more than once or twice a day, rather than always being logged in.

Finally, I’m hoping to develop a status setting for my smart phone that responds to all incoming notifications with messages such as: “Neither on nor off, merely resting”, “taking a mental pause”, “out to lunch”, or “making time for reflection before I respond”.**

Next week: Differentiating in a digital world

Notes:

* I recently heard about Humin, which is sort of moving in this direction, but it’s really a personalised CRM tool for your smart phone

** Apple’s “Do Not Disturb” function only supports “on/off” with respect to phone calls, and with a limited scope to filter contacts

Content in Context

Exploring the information age…

Category Archives: Digital Economy

AngelCube15 – has your #startup got what it takes?