Gerd Leonhard: A Facebook Data Spill? Data and Privacy

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2012/04/10/Data_is_the...

Gerd Leonhard, CEO of The Futures Agency, discusses the business, politics, and ramifications of big data and privacy. Leonard argues that there is a trade-off to free social media services.

----

Data will become a key currency, as it is a virtually limitless, non-rival, and exponentially growing good. Do we need regulations or trust frameworks to deal with it? Can data really be safeguarded in an entirely free-market system governed by commercial interests? What will Generation AO (always-on) share with whom, when, where, and how? And if data is the new oil, how do we avoid wars and global conflicts fought over it?

Join leading futurists at swissnex in a debate co-organized by Switzerland's The Futures Agency (TFA) on data as today's key global resource.

Gerd Leonhard is a media futurist, blogger, digerati, writer, speaker and advisor. He has spent over twenty-five years in the technology and entertainment industries, both in the U.S. as well as in Europe, and recently in Asia. Leonhard writes about the impact that new technologies have on content and the media industry.

• Category

  Science & Technology

[LokiClock]

Advertising on the web wouldn't be dead, it would just go back to the way it used to be - moderate and non-invasive.

[LoneBaldEagle]

facebook sucks

[LokiClock]

You're first of all being defeatest about policing it. Second of all, the user contract doesn't protect the users. That's the problem, not trying to enforce it. That is a solution, clearly defined. I want companies to care about privacy like they say they do.

[TonyTheSamurai]

If its practical/economical for the advertisers then they'll do it. Just as I'm sure you have a way of making money to feed yourself. Hitmen (for example) shouldn't make money even if its practical, because killing people for money is immoral. If advertisers are being immoral (breaching privacy) they shouldn't do it. But they will, because its impossible to police. You should care because this is not how society should be. Or don't care, but then don't complain without having a solution.

[LokiClock]

So what's your objection?

[LokiClock]

You're objecting on grounds of practicality and economics for the advertisers. It's beside the point. They could be selling it to anybody, but there's no reaction because it's predictable because it's advertising. Besides acknowledging that they're benefiting from this behavior, I don't have any reason to care whether advertising is effective.

[TonyTheSamurai]

You should care whether advertising is effective or not. You live in a capitalistic society with producers and consumers and advertisers and without some form of firm regulation a company is in its best interest to keep doing a financially viable activity. Ads are annoying and can even breach privacy, but you should object to this on a moral ground, NOT one of practicality or economics.

[TonyTheSamurai]

What circumstance has arisen that make producing content so expensive? Even if technology develops to the point where cameras et. al are cheap as pens and paper you'll still need people that have dedicated there lives to mastering their craft. Or else YouTube would turn into a sea of 'aspiring amateurs', which is fine in moderation, but look of 'The Cult of the Amateur'. As for Alienation, as soon as companies DO ACTUALLY alienate their consumers they will stop doing it.

[LokiClock]

The more advertisements try to get personal and push my buttons, the less I pay attention to them. I'm also not at all concerned with how effective advertising is. If your business depends on infringing on my privacy, tough. Finally, we're a country of producers, not advertisers and consumers. It shouldn't matter one bit how effective the ads are. Advertising is just a job, and one that perpetuates itself. It needs no protection from us, no defense, and we don't owe it any of ourselves.

[LokiClock]

Alienating your market is not effective advertising. Regulation isn't even on the table right now. If people want the service, and they do or else the market wouldn't be cornered, there's nowhere else to go, in Google's case because no one else has the same quality without a business model based on selling out their users, or in Facebook's case because the effectiveness of the service relies on exclusive patronage. The money needed for high quality content is by circumstance, not rule.

[TonyTheSamurai]

I was talking about effectiveness, not morality. Its one thing to not understand, another to disagree. I'm agree with you, but how can you actually regulate this kind of conduct? Not to mention what EVERYONE here can't recognize, production of HIGH QUALITY content requires money. often lots of money.

[TheLonelyImmortal]

People aren't really against tracking, they're against personally identifiable information being gathered, and getting skewed results in a search engine because of search history (such as with political affiliation). People want anonymity but are actually okay with having companies know what to sell you. But no one trusts companies to do that yet, because there aren't enough laws in place protecting users/consumers.