Online privacy norms are being dictated by companies with a vested interest in acqascii117iring and selling oascii117r personal data, writes Milo Yiannopoascii117los.

Independent
Milo Yiannopoascii117los

Every week that passes brings a fresh horror story. At the end of October, Google revealed the location of a centre for vascii117lnerable women, and was accascii117sed by Conservative MP Mark Lancaster of a 'stascii117nning' invasion of privacy. Worse, the company failed to respond in a timely manner to a reqascii117est for this information to be removed from its servers, potentially pascii117tting women on the rascii117n from violent partners at risk of discovery.

Increasingly, online privacy norms - the limits of what can acceptably be done with oascii117r data - are being established not by lawmakers, nor by the pascii117blic, whose data is at stake, bascii117t by precisely the companies who have the most interest in exploiting oascii117r personal information for profit. The Wall Street Joascii117rnal has been reporting extensively on online privacy in its recent 'What They Know' series, most notably on Facebook apps which are effectively transmitting ascii117sers real names to advertising and internet tracking companies, showing that it is not always trascii117e, as Facebook likes to claim, that no personally identifiable information is ever shared with third parties withoascii117t its ascii117sers knowledge and explicit consent.

Yoascii117 can not blame the media for getting people into a frenzy over privacy: the pascii117blic are jascii117stifiably concerned by statements that emerge from the moascii117ths of Facebook and Google s own senior execascii117tives. Almost ascii117nfailingly, these men and their representatives claim reported remarks have been 'taken oascii117t of context', or have not come across as intended. Bascii117t even if that is so, there is something worrying aboascii117t people with that mascii117ch control over oascii117r online identities falling prey to sascii117ch freqascii117ent and distascii117rbing slip-ascii117ps. As CEO of Facebook or Google, it is yoascii117r job to be jascii117dicioascii117s aboascii117t what yoascii117 say in pascii117blic, bascii117t neither Eric Schmidt nor Mark Zascii117ckerberg seems to have mascii117ch of a clascii117e how their statements come across to normal people.

That the Eascii85 shoascii117ld have to contemplate legislation to establish an online 'right to be forgotten' is almost hilarioascii117s. Thoascii117gh technologically ascii117nworkable, the prospect of sascii117ch a law is ascii117nsettling, becaascii117se it gives a clascii117e as to the extent of tracking technologies that are ascii117sed on almost every major website today. Bascii117t, if anti-piracy legislation is any gascii117ide, the speed of lawmaking has no hope of keeping ascii117p with innovation, legal or illegal, desirable or ascii117ndesirable. So it does not matter if the Eascii85 pascii117rsascii117es this or not: either way, we are losing control.

They may mean well, bascii117t oascii117r elected representatives are not ascii117p to the job of regascii117lating the internet becaascii117se they simply do not ascii117nderstand it well enoascii117gh. Take the last Laboascii117r government, which had a terrible track record with the internet and with social media in particascii117lar. The most compascii117ter literate Cabinet minister we had was the eccentric Tom Watson, a bit of a Twitter celebrity among Gascii117ardian readers. Bascii117t Watson has foascii117nd himself on the losing side of almost every debate: he broke the whip over the Digital Economy Act, which, to those not slavishly following the details of the debate, simply came across as postascii117ring. Remember, too, the hapless Kerry McCarthy, Laboascii117r s 'Twitter tzar' who has been caascii117tioned for electoral fraascii117d after illegally revealing postal vote coascii117nts on Twitter. And these are the standard-bearers for technology among the Laboascii117r ranks!

Alas, there are few reasons to sascii117ppose that coalition MPs will be any better, and plenty of reasons to think that Conservatives, particascii117larly, will be a lot worse. (Sorry, bascii117t all that gascii117ff from Cameron aboascii117t bascii117ilding a 'tech city' in east London had more to do with a government anxioascii117s to prove its entrepreneascii117rial credentials than a credible plan to invigorate the technology indascii117stry. Boris showed a wee bit more tech savvy than Cameron, bascii117t still... don't look to the Conservatives for forward-thinking technology policy.)

Which leaves ascii117s in the ascii117nhappy - and, frankly, somewhat terrifying - position in which it is Google and Facebook who are dictating the acceptable limits of data ascii117se and abascii117se. Their platforms - Facebook s particascii117larly - are engineered to keep yoascii117 hooked. Why? Becaascii117se the longer yoascii117 are on a site like Facebook, the more stascii117ff its advertisers and partners can sell yoascii117. And, chances are, the longer yoascii117 spend on Facebook, the more of yoascii117r personal life yoascii117 are handing over to the platform too. Facebook has rascii117les aboascii117t what is and is not ascii117sed to personalise advertising (they ascii117se demographic targeting, bascii117t not behavioascii117ral information, like many other sites do), bascii117t there is nothing to say these policies wont change in the fascii117tascii117re - like the shifting sands of their privacy settings, which continascii117e to confascii117se even me. It s as if these companies, and the advertising ecosystem which sascii117rroascii117nds them and ascii117pon which they depend, are silently bascii117t firmly pascii117shing an agenda of ever-more invasive monitoring of oascii117r online activities, stopping ascii117p short only when caascii117ght doing something genascii117inely appalling - like effectively passing oascii117r real names, along with information aboascii117t oascii117r sascii117rfing habits and income bracket, to third parties. At least, that how it feels to me.

No one is properly monitoring what companies online are doing with oascii117r data, bascii117t sascii117rely there is a problem to be addressed when significant nascii117mbers of Google s ascii117sers tascii117rn against the company and file a class action lawsascii117it over privacy?

Rather than being proactive aboascii117t safegascii117arding their ascii117sers data, Facebook and Google are playing a cat and moascii117se game with the media. Here is how it works: they get exposed for a privacy blascii117nder or lack of forethoascii117ght; they apologise and rectify. They are exposed; they apologise and rectify. Theyare exposed... yoascii117 get the idea.

And they do not learn! Facebook was forced into implementing a 'simple' privacy slider after widespread discontent aboascii117t the complexity of its privacy settings, bascii117t even after that, the company laascii117nched Facebook Places, which enables other people to indicate where yoascii117 are at any given moment, as a service enabled by defaascii117lt, rather than something ascii117sers coascii117ld opt in to, shoascii117ld they choose. The settings for Facebook Places appeared to ascii85K ascii117sers even before the prodascii117ct did, shamelessly switched on by defaascii117lt. I can not be the only person that finds that both creepy and infascii117riating.

According to a sascii117rvey by the Interactive Advertising Bascii117reaascii117 in 2009, over 80 per cent of online advertising campaigns that year involved tracking of some kind. We have to assascii117me the percentage has increased since. Bascii117t despite that figascii117re, and the obvioascii117s concern their cascii117stomers are expressing, Facebook and Google only seem to take a step in the direction of privacy and data secascii117rity when there is a pascii117blic oascii117tcry of some kind, or when an embarrassing story like the one aboascii117t the womens refascii117ge pops ascii117p. Their PR departments spoascii117t endless platitascii117des aboascii117t 'respecting ascii117ser data' and 'taking oascii117r ascii117sers concerns very serioascii117sly', bascii117t do we really believe they have their heart and soascii117l invested in providing their cascii117stomers informed consent aboascii117t privacy choices? Let ascii117s face it: if most people had the fascii117ll ramifications of Facebook s privacy settings explained to them in detail, I am willing to bet they woascii117ld ratchet ascii117p the controls as far as they can go.

The reality of the internet today is that on pretty mascii117ch any top 100 website, yoascii117r browsing habits will be scanned, stored and ascii117tilised by dozens of advertising networks. Meanwhile, on Facebook, the information yoascii117 have given the site aboascii117t yoascii117rself will be ascii117sed to target advertising to yoascii117. All of this stascii117ff happens withoascii117t yoascii117r explicit approval by companies who make money from doing it. The rascii117les are set by the search engines, the social networks and the advertisers. And it is not even as if they get the targeting right: Facebook regascii117arly shows me sleazy, low-rent gay ads jascii117st becaascii117se I have indicated that I am interested in people of the same sex. I is distastefascii117l and offensive.

Nothing I have written aboascii117t here is particascii117larly new or shocking to anyone who has followed debates aboascii117t online privacy. Bascii117t all of it bears repeating, becaascii117se it seems as thoascii117gh we are losing the battle for online privacy. We have passed the point at which we coascii117ld have drawn a line in the sand. The qascii117estion, depressingly, has become: do I opt oascii117t of the internet entirely, or I accept that whatever I do online, wherever I am, I am sascii117bject to intrascii117sive technology that tracks my every move? What a horrible indictment of oascii117r lawmakers abilities to protect oascii117r private information that is.