Is it possible to data mine social networks in such a way to does not hurt the privacy of the individual user, and if so, can we justify doing such? It wasn't too long ago the CEO of Google stated that it was important that they were able to keep data of Google searches so they can find disease, flu, and food born medical clusters. By using this data and studying the regions in the searches to help fight against outbreaks of diseases, or food borne illnesses in the distribution system. This is one good reason to store the data, and collect it for research, as long as it is anonomized, then theoretically no one is hurt.
Unfortunately, this also scares the users, because they know if the searches are indeed stored, this data can be used against them in the future, for instance, higher insurance rates, bombardment of advertising, or get them put onto some sort of future government "thought police" watch-list. Especially considering all the political correctness, and new ways of defining hate speech, bullying, and what is, what isn't, and what might be a domestically home-grown terrorist. The future concept of the thought police is very scary to most folks.
Usually if you want to collect data from a user, you have to give them something back in return, and therefore they are willing to sign away certain privacy rights on that data in trade for the use of such services; such as on their cell phone, perhaps a free iPhone app or a virtual product in an online social network.
Artificially Intelligent Search Features
It is no surprised that AI search features are getting smarter, even able to anticipate your next search question, or what you are really trying to ask, even second guessing your question for instance. Now then, let's discuss this for a moment. Many folks very much enjoy the features of Amazon.com search features, which use artificial intelligence to recommend potential other books, which they might be interested in. And therefore the user probably does not mind giving away information about itself, for this upgraded service or ability, nor would the person mind having cookies put onto their Web browser.
Nevertheless, these types of systems are always exploited for other purposes. For instance consider the Federal Trade Commission's do not call list, and consider how many corporations, political party organizations, and all of their affiliates and partners were able to bypass these rules due to the fact that the consumer or customer had bought something from them in the last six months. This is not what consumers or customers had in mind when they decided they wanted to have this "do not call list" and the resultant and response from the market place, well, it proves we cannot trust the telecommunication companies, their lobbyists, or the insiders within their group (many of which over the years have indeed been somehow connected to the intelligence agencies - AT&T - NSA Echelon for example.)
Now then, this article is in no way to be considered a conspiracy theory, it is just a known fact, yes national security does need access to such information, and often it might be relevant, catching bad guys, terrorists, spies, etc. The NSA is to protect the American People. However, when it comes to the telecommunication companies, their job is to protect shareholder's equity, maximize quarterly profits, expand their business models, and create new profit centers in their corporations.
Thus, such user data will be and has been exploited for future profits against the wishes of the consumer, without the consumer benefiting from free services for lower prices in any way. If there is an explained reason, trade-off, and a monetary consideration, the consumer might feel obliged to have additional calls bothering them while they are at home, additional advertising, and tracking of their preferences for ease of use and suggestions. What types of suggestions?
Well, there is a Starbucks two-blocks from here, turn right, then turn left and it is 200 yards, with parking available; "Sale on Frappachinos for gold-card holders today!" In this case the telecommunication company tracks your location, knows your preferences, and collects a small fee from Starbucks, and you get a free-phone, and 20% off your monthly 4G wireless fee. Is that something a consumer might want; when asked 75% of consumers or smart phone users say; yes. See that point?
In the future smart phones may have data transferred between them, rather than going through a given or closest cell tower. In other words, packets of information may go from your cell phone, to the next nearest cell phone, to another near cell phone, to the person which is intended to receive it. And the data passing through each mobile device, will not be able to read any of the information which was it is not assigned to receive as it wasn't sent to it. By using such a scheme telecommunication companies can expand their services without building more new cell towers, and therefore they can lower the price.
However, it also means that when you lay your cell phone on the table, and it is turned on it would be constantly passing data through it, data which is not yours, and you are not getting paid for that, even though you had to purchase the smart phone. But if the phone was given to you, with a large battery, so it wouldn't go dead during all those transmissions, you probably wouldn't care, as long as your data packets of information were indeed safe and no one else could read them.
This technology exists now, and is being discussed, and consider if you will that the whole strategy of networking smart cell phones or personal tech devices together is nothing new. For instance, the same strategies have been designed for satellites, and to use an analogy, this scheme is very similar to the strategies FedEx uses when it sends packages to the next nearest FedEx office if that is their destination, without sending all of the packages all the way across the country to the central Memphis sort, and then all the way back again. They are saving time, fuel, space, and energy, and if cell phones did this it would save the telecommunication companies mega bucks in the savings of building new cell towers.
As long as you got a free cell phone, which many of us do, unless we have the mega top of the line edition, and if they gave you a long-lasting free battery it is win-win for the user. You probably wouldn't care, and the telecommunication companies could most likely lower the cost of services, and not need to upgrade their system, because they can carry a lot more data, without hundreds of billions of dollars in future investments.
Also a net centric system like this is safer to disruption in the event of an emergency, when emergency communications systems take precedence, putting every cell phone user as secondary traffic at the cell towers, which means their calls may not even get through.
Next, the last thing the telecommunication company would want to do is to data mine that data, or those packets of information from people like a soccer mom calling her son waiting at the bus stop at school. And anyone with a cell phone certainly wouldn't want their packets of information being stolen from them and rerouted because someone near them hacked into the system and had a cell phone that was displaying all of their information.
You can see the problems with all this, but you can also see the incredible economies of scale by making each and every cell phone a transmitter and receiver, which it already is in principle anyway, at least now for all data you send and receive. In the new system, if all the data which is closest by is able to transfer through it, and send that data on its way. The receiving cell phone would wait for all the packets of data were in, and then display the information.
You can see why such a system also might cause people to have a problem with it because of what they call net neutrality. If someone was downloading a movie onto their iPad using a 3G or 4G wireless network, it could tie up all the cell phones nearby that were moving the data through them. In this case, it might upset consumers, but if that traffic could be somewhat delayed by priority based on an AI algorithm decision matrix, something simple, then such a tactic for packet distribution plan might allow for this to occur without disruption from the actual cell tower, meaning everyone would be better off. Therefore we all get information flow faster, more dispersed, and therefore safer from intruders. Please consider all this.
References;
"Privacy on the Line - The Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption," by Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, (1999), pp. 364, ISBN: 0-262-04167-7.
Wall Street Journal Article; "On the Web's Cutting Edge, Anonymity in Name Only," by Emily Steel and Julia Angwin.
WSJ article; "The Great Privacy Debate," by Jim Harper of Cato Institute, and Nicholas Carr author, Saturday-Sunday Edition, August 7-8, 2010.
