Lost Privacy Isn’t Required To Use Location Data Beneficially

To: Those Unable to See Value of and Path to Anonymous Information,

The Corona virus is perhaps the largest event that has surfaced a variety of issues and problems calling for solutions that span a wide spectrum of needs. Some needs vastly more important than others, and some arising over and over again for different reasons but with the same underlying concerns. Needs like have the technical capabilities and processes that enable a nation and its government to serve and protect the nation and its citizens; and concerns like not violating the principles and values embedded in a nation’s character. Those societal concerns can differ from society to society and form of government to form of government, and may conform to civil norms or not; but the needs persist, nonetheless.

The collection and use of ‘Personal Location And Compiled End-user’ (PLACE) data is one of the issues that once again appeared as a topic of interest for how to deal with a problem/threat: the Corona virus pandemic. Oddly, all the concerns and worries are over problems and risks that are easily resolved. It shouldn’t be hard to see the potential value in having access to PLACE data for an event like the Corona virus outbreak. The need is critical and in some manner or other has to be meet and used. The risks are also apparent if for not other reason than they have been identified and focused on well before the virus. In the US, EU and other democracies, concerns over PLACE data being abused by the powers that be are a rallying point for those who see the threat citizens could face to their civil liberties. This tension between the needs and the risks is a key dimension of the problem that must be solved; and it is the problem that is being solved differently by each nation based on how they define their nation’s values, rights and needs.

In looking at the current status of this issue, the application and use of PLACE data is already being used by some nations in reaction to the Corona virus. Even the US and EU are likely allowing some use of this data to aid in the isolation and containment of the Corona virus. There are even corporations and businesses in the US that are using their own PLACE data to provide insight into how the virus is appearing geographically and how it is affecting various aspects of the economy, businesses, activities, and other dimensions of what people are doing or not doing. China, South Korea and some other nations are reportedly using PLACE data on their citizens very aggressively. How different countries are approaching and using PLACE data differs among nations is influenced/determined by the type of government, form of societies, technical capabilities, and expectations & rights citizens.

Monitoring citizens in China and elsewhere is not a barrier or issue for their respective governments; and whether their citizens care is irrelevant to the government. In the US and EU, and I’m sure elsewhere, there are vastly different aspects of PLACE data being used by governments and even businesses to some extent. The differences between countries affects what methods and approaches can be used to not just respond to the immediate risks of the pandemic or anything like it; but those differences affect how those nations can plan, implement and manage the re-starting of their economies and the re-normalization of societal activities and business operations.

The EU is wrestling with how PLACE data will be used, how it can be used, and who can or can’t use it. While I’m not aware of whether there are similar discussions in Congress about PLACE data and its use in conjunction with US Corona virus efforts, the question of PLACE data has been and continues to be a political and social issue in the US. Privacy rights and concerns are one of the core issues in the US and EU; and often tied to a distrust of one’s government to not abuse the use of that data, to the fear that the government will intentionally use the information to control the public and erode/destroy our Democracy.

These concerns are not absolutely unfounded nor without some risk if PLACE data is accumulated and accessible to the government(s). Congress has restricted the NSA’s ability to access phone data that they granted to the NSA (the government) after 9/11; but before the Corona virus outbreak the Trump Administration recently asked to re-authorize allowing the NSA such access again. There are reasons that having access to phone and other types of PLACE data would be beneficial to the nation, to the public and the government just as there are risks that such access could entail. Such information, and even more information than most citizens would expect or grasp, is already available to and used by corporations, businesses, other nations, criminals & terrorists, and most likely by the government in certain cases. The public generally is very afraid and concerned that the “government” would have that data but are blissfully unconcerned (more likely unaware) that others already have data they don’t want the ‘government’ to have. This duality of fear that your data will be used against you and not knowing or caring that it already is being used by others to their benefit and perhaps not yours is somewhat irrational; particularly since it is used just by other entities you don’t even know about.

Regardless of the reality of what people are afraid about, or what people even understand, there is and will be resistance in the US and other nations to allowing their governments to have access to information that they feel allows for intrusions into their privacy and worse puts them at risk to some action by the government. Despite this fear, there will be more and more information available to the government over time; and whether that includes all PLACE data is going to be a question of the level of details that they have available.

These fears, risks and concerns do not mean that there are no solutions that avoid these threats. There is nothing that absolutely prevents the benefits to be had and the risks to be prevented. To achieve those mutual goals the requirement is to properly understand the problem and to competently solve the problem so as to meet both goals. And despite the failure to have found any of the solutions that would achieve those goals, there are solutions to this conflict. Solutions that balance meeting the benefits and avoiding the risks/costs of enabling that information to be used for reasons that are beneficial to the nation and the public welfare, while safeguarding their privacy simultaneously. This is the truly surprising point. You can achieve both objectives. There is no Law of Physics that would be violated in doing both. There is no technical barrier preventing access to and use of the data required for a wide range of tasks that serve the interests of the nation and its citizens. In fact, a properly designed and implemented set of capabilities would prove to be more useful and valuable to the nation, the public, the government, businesses and our economy than is imagined. And all this could be done without anyone sacrificing their privacy, violations of the Constitution, or being a threat to our freedoms or democracy.

What then is the obstacle? Why doesn’t the US do this?

There are several reasons. First and foremost is Congress. Congress is not well-suited to undertaking this task and is absolutely ill-suited to determining what it would mean to do it and to understand what is required to have it implemented. Add to this that Congress would almost surely require things that are not just unnecessary but that would create the very problems that they are supposed to be preventing. While it’s true Congress has a necessary and critical role to play, that role may well be beyond their competencies. Congress would have to authorize competent and capable people to solve the problem and define the solution, and then to implement and operate the process to deliver it. Congress would have oversight but not control to impose violations of that process.

The Administration represents the next entity that would be a barrier. Administrations would be responsible for the entity(entities) that perform the tasks that enable PLACE data to be used to provide the benefits to the nation and prevents abuses. The fundamental obstacle Administrations pose is that they would have to be ‘proscribed’ from interfering in operations and altering process and procedures that are designed specifically to prevent governmental abuse. Again, not a technical problem, but a political one. Technically and operationally preventing abuse is simple; but allowing limits on executive interference with the process requires independence from the political realm. There are methods to resolve this risk to Administrative abuse while allowing an Administration to have authority over the implementing agency, it just needs to be part of the design.

On another front there are private and corporate interests that would assuredly want to provide their ‘solutions’. This hardly seems surprising since it would be necessary for the government to engage with businesses in this undertaking, if for no other reason than the government would depend upon businesses as the basic sources of information. Plus the government would need the private sector to design, develop and implement most of the infrastructure required to fulfill the functionality required to accomplish the dual missions: securing privacy of our citizens and enabling the ability to use PLACE data to deliver the valuable capabilities and information that can benefit the country.

But even though these groups are themselves obstacles to achieving the benefits, that doesn’t mean you can’t reach the two objectives. It’s not even hard to do on the technology level.

Reaping the values that can be had should thus be the challenge that we work toward. Those who don’t know how to solve the problems, who can’t explain what the solution(s) is/are, and who don’t even know how to go about getting it done are not proof that it can’t be done. They are only verifying that they don’t know how. Just because they don’t know how, doesn’t mean others do not. This is true for even our largest and most revered technical leaders and entities. There is nothing that requires those often expected to be the ‘best’ at solving technical problems to actually being able to do so. All that is necessary and required is good, sound and reasoned problem-solving skills and being adept at seeing innovative opportunities

This is the true problem. Allowing the PLACE data problem to be solved without the interference of those who are not suited to the task or are seeking interests that are in opposition to the goals.