In my current column in CIO Insight, href="http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,1540,2159182,00.asp">“The Pointless Privacy Debate” I write that the rhetoric spilled over data privacy issues is both unproductive and unreasoned.
The European Union, for example, recently hailed Google's pledge to anonymize retained search data after 18 months. Another EU directorate similarly hailed Google's earlier pledge to comply with EU requirements to retain private data for at least two years.
When talking about privacy, the analogy of drivers and pedestrians seems apt. When you're driving, the glacial pace of pedestrians crossing the street is instantly infuriating. But the minute you get out of the car and become a pedestrian yourself, you just can't understand why those damned drivers don't slow down.
When your information is being captured and logged, the natural human (especially if the human is American) response is suspicion or worse--why do they want this information? What are they going to do with it? What's the risk that it will be exposed in some way that will embarrass me or worse?
But if you're running any kind of business, you can't understand why anyone objects to your collecting basic information you need to provide better customer service, customize your future offerings, or offer appropriate discounts and special pricing.
For governments, the paradox is in the desire to protect the privacy of citizens (anonymize that data!) and at the same time to protect private citizens from criminals and terrorists (retain that data!).
As I write in the article, trying to debate privacy as a moral imperative isn't getting us anywhere. What we need to do is recognize that information has value and that the real debate--or rather the real negotiation--is over how the pie gets sliced up as more and more valuable information gets collected, thanks to improvements in technology.