Free Data? Profit Aplenty...

 

A thought on the value of the essentially intangible and very often misunderstood world of data. Two articles were brought to my attention today, both concerning data from spheres that often cross paths. The first was a piece linked to by my old friend John in Birmingham (UK), published in the New York Times a couple of days ago. The second, Jane pointed me at, is from today's 'i' newspaper, here in the UK.

In the first piece, the NYT [Opinion section] talks about a large dataset passed to them by an anonymous source, culled from information passed around the mobile phone network, that enabled the tracking and naming of people involved in the storming of the Capitol in Washington earlier this year. The dataset consisted of the advertising ID's from around 100,000 pings from smartphones across Washington that day. These IDs each in themselves contain a small amount of seemingly trivial data: date of birth, gender and approximate place of residence from a stub of post[zip]code; related to the individual using the device, and based on their online activities: mostly shopping, browsing etc., combined with GPS and other locational data.

In and of itself, it's anonymized data. But the rub is, these IDs are the same for each individual, no matter what platforms are involved: Android, iPhone, Windows, macOS and so on. The catch therefore is that these 'tags' if you like, are common 'cribs' to use an old cryptanalyst term: add these common bits of apparently trivial data to location and other data out there from phone usage, internet browsing and purchase histories, and the 'trivial' advertising ID data becomes the key to identify individuals and their properties. For a great explanation of how 'cribs' are used in cryptanalysis, see 'The Code Book' by Simon Singh, published by Fourth Estate. The upshot is we're leaving breadcrumb trails all over the place that almost anyone with modest talent and access to the data we leave behind us can exploit; not just for profit, but to observe and control our habits and behaviours.

The second piece details how, here in the UK, the government are trying by stealth to roll back from the Freedom of Information Act, introduced in 2000, which allowed citizens [strictly not a true term - we're still technically 'Subjects' of HM the Q] of the UK to access data held on them, upon request. Any refusal to relinquish such information held on databases, governmental or otherwise, could be met with an appeal in the open courts. Now it seems that the devious buggers have found a simple way of circumventing a basic, enshrined-in-law citizens' right, by simply not responding to the request for information in the first place. Apparently, an appeal cannot be lodged against this stonewall tactic. If the authorities refuse to acknowledge the request, legally it does not exist and can be ignored. I think a trawl through the Laws of Contract might be in order for someone of a legal and precedent-ary bent here; as I seem to remember similarities in that civil domain with respect to 'relationships'.

Whatever, it seems that the freedom to hold and use data is; surprise, surprise(!) still largely one way traffic in our society. Those with the deep pockets, position and privilege can access, hold and exploit whatever data are available regarding the private lives of millions of individuals; yet those very people struggle to gain any access whatsoever to information that holds massive influence over their lives: viz Grenfell and the thousands of like properties throughout the UK. Wrong seems too small a word for it all.