Published on | Prototyping: From UX to Front End — Medium Kate O’Neill

Last night, on an otherwise normal Thursday evening, I met up with a friend to attend a launch party for an app, and then afterward we wandered off to a nearby bar for a drink. The bar was a place my friend knew of; it had been an old favorite of his, and because we walked over there together, there was no need for me to pull out my phone and search for the address or anything like that. In fact, if you’d asked me first thing this morning, I probably couldn’t have even told you the name of the bar.

But Foursquare knew.

At 9:49 AM on Friday morning, I got email from Foursquare asking me how I liked the bar. The bar I never searched Foursquare for. The bar I never checked into, or in any other way had any interaction with Foursquare or even with my phone at all about.

It rankled me.

So I tweeted about it.

Not sure how I feel about @Foursquare emailing me to ask me to rate a place that I did go to, but never searched for or checked in to.

— @kateo

As I clarified in a few follow-up tweets, it didn’t surprise me that they had access to my location. I wrote a book, after all, about the increasing integration of digital data in our physical surroundings and there are few surprises to me in that arena. But the fact that they used that location data without my having invited that interaction bothered me.

Foursquare replied and defended themselves by saying they needed the data to provide good recommendations.

@kateo @Foursquare We use location to provide the best contextual recommendations for you based on where you’ve been and what you like! https://t.co/3hbPwB6qKM

— @FoursquareGuide

But as I said, it isn’t so much that they had the location data that bothered me; it was that they used it with no invitation or invocation from me.

@FoursquareGuide @Foursquare I didn’t use the app to search for this place, but your service emailed me to ask me to rate it. That’s like… butting into a conversation.

— @kateo

@FoursquareGuide @Foursquare I appreciate that the app can offer great suggestions because it’s able to track where I go/what I do. But…

— @kateo

@FoursquareGuide @Foursquare Precisely BECAUSE it’s tracking that data, it needs to be up to the user to invoke interactions about where they’ve been, not the app.

— @kateo

@FoursquareGuide @Foursquare A check-in to a place or even a search for that place could arguably count as invoking an interaction. Following up via email would be fine.

— @kateo

@FoursquareGuide @Foursquare But if I did NOTHING with the app, as in this case, and you email me about it? https://t.co/buZQnYOClD

— @kateo

The longer I sat with it, the more I realized that what really bothered me was that they didn’t have my consent.

And just like that, this started to remind me of issues relating to rape.

Now hang on. I know some of you are rolling your eyes. And of course I know it’s not rape, not even close; but what the outline of the story was beginning to remind me of was rape culture.

If you’re new to the idea of rape culture, here’s how Only With Consent describes it:

Rape Culture is a culture in which sexual violence is normalized and even condoned in popular culture. Misogynistic language, the glamorization of sexual violence, and the cultural acceptance of victim blaming perpetuates rape culture. People who are unfamiliar with the term “rape culture” are often put off by the idea because they think people are being too dramatic. […]

Rape culture is victim blaming. “She was asking for it.” “He shouldn’t have been there that late.”
[…]
Rape culture is teaching women not to get raped instead of teaching men not to rape.
Rape culture is anti-rape wear.

In no way do I mean to trivialize sexual violence by likening rape culture to the invasive usage of personal data; I mean it as a comparison at a systemic level, where the dynamics of power and accountability operate.

Because here’s what we’re dealing with now, and tell me if this rings any bells: we are moving through the digital world in a very vulnerable way, where everything we do and the data it generates is subject to scrutiny and manipulation, and the world says it’s up to us to be wary and guarded, instead of demanding that companies not abuse the data we provide to them.

OK, you may say, maybe you should just delete Foursquare.

But it’s not just Foursquare. Don’t forget that Uber collects your battery level when you hail a ride, and they know that if your battery level is low, you’re more likely to be willing to pay a surge fee for your ride.

Fine, maybe delete Uber, too.

And don’t forget that your camera can be hijacked and used against you.

Uh, OK, put a piece of removable tape over your camera and get on with your life.

The list goes on and on, though. And do you see what I’m getting at? Little by little, we’re making concessions to abusive and exploitative behavior, and restricting ourselves to avoid it.

And we do need to act in our own protection, but as human beings who are increasingly dependent on our phones (and watches and other wearables and our smart home devices and smart cars and so on) and increasingly accustomed to the conveniences afforded to us by the integration of the data resulting from that usage, it’s equally important that we also put pressures on companies and institutions to treat our data with respect.

Because even though this whole thing sounds like I’m picking on Foursquare, it’s clearly bigger than Foursquare. It’s a whole accelerating mess of overeager overreaches.

For example, my husband is getting ready for an international work trip, and because federal agents have been seizing and searching phones at the U.S. border, and even copying data from them, part of his preparations involve buying and setting up a “burner” travel phone that won’t be linked to his bank accounts, social media accounts, and all the other interconnected parts of a typical professional’s phone usage in 2017.

How absurd is it that we are at a place where our best protection against a breach of our data privacy (by our own government, no less) includes leaving our real devices at home and having to use dummy equipment for travel?

So if this concerns you, talk about it. Share this post, share your own thoughts, get people thinking.

Companies aren’t doing this to be evil. They’re doing it because it’s in their interest, and no one has sufficiently proven to them that it would be more in their interest to demonstrate respect for the humans who use their services through restraint. If they didn’t collect data they didn’t need in the first place, like Uber and the phone battery level, there would be less risk associated with abusing it. But if they do collect it, they need to exercise discretion in how they deploy it.

How and when will that happen? When companies hear from you and from me and from everyone else who shares this concern that we only want a relationship with them if it is fair. That we agree to an exchange of value where they provide us with services and we provide them with money and/or data, but that they must act in a way that continually earns our trust and demonstrates respect for our data.

And Foursquare, take this as a bit of free consulting: fix it. Don’t make me bust out another Oprah GIF on you.

___

Thank you for reading. Please hit the green heart / “Recommend” button if you found this piece interesting or meaningful. And please feel free to share widely.

Kate O’Neill, founder and CEO of KO Insights, is an experience strategy consultant focused on the impact of data and technology on meaningful human experiences in both digital and physical space. She is also a keynote speaker, and author of the book Pixels and Place: Connecting Human Experience Across Digital and Physical Spaces.

Data Intrusiveness vs. Getting Consent was originally published in Prototyping: From UX to Front End on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Data Intrusiveness vs. Getting Consent

Cool stuff, every week

More Articles