Data octopus debate

The second Havas Trend Forum was devoted entirely to the red-hot topic of data collection and exploitation. Whoever has power over algorithms, according to guest speaker Marc Elsberg, has the highest level of power - he influences us without us noticing. The best-selling author and former CD Elsberg read from his 2014 crime novel "Zero - They Know What You're Doing." The novel tells the story of London journalist Cynthia Bonsant, whose daughter becomes involved in a mysterious shooting. Bonsant investigates the background to the crime and comes across the fictional platform Freemee, which helps its users to improve their lives in all areas. During her research, she comes under fire from Freemee and the U.S. Secret Service - and into contact with the activist group Zero, which has set itself the goal of smashing all data octopuses.

In his presentation, Elsberg criticizes current developments and speaks of a "violation of human dignity" when companies make the values and wishes of their customers tradable. Ultimately, however, it is not the power of technology but of an ideology: the free market economy. The market decides how much our courage is worth or our sense of family. The only difference between now and the past is that companies like insurance companies can follow us wherever we go. They don't have to disclose their codes. "They snoop on us, and our privacy becomes a trade secret," Elsberg says. Google, Facebook & Co. would have the means for mass manipulation and are subject to a "countermovement to democracy." Because just like the fictional company Freemee, they do not simply map social dynamics and processes, according to Elsberg: "All software is based on fundamental assumptions of its programmers. These assumptions flow into the program. For example, whether one is a follower of non-cooperative game theory or cooperative. That is, the program ultimately maps the worldview of the people who write it." Digital surveillance ultimately leads to standardization that reduces innovation and quality of life, he said.

The presentation was followed by a panel discussion lasting around 30 minutes, chaired by Persönlich Editor-in-Chief Matthias Ackeret. In addition to Peter Rehnke and Marc Elsberg, the panelists included Adwebster CEO Michel Lazecki and attorney Nathalie Glaus. The law is in a state that is no longer appropriate for today's circumstances, the lawyer said. Existing data protection laws are usually not affected in the case of anonymized data. Michel Lazecki emphasizes that the individual is of no interest in online marketing. Users are grouped into clusters and only group profiles are created. In two years, however, the possibilities of predicting individual consumer behavior in the context of predictive targeting will be massively improved. In an entertaining way, the event provided insights into a topic that is controversial, especially beyond the industry. Both the novel and the Trend Forum left open the question of how best to address the new possibilities of online tracking as a society. For Rehnke, however, one thing is clear: "We at Havas know what we're doing."

Simone Isliker

"Data protection no longer does justice to the technical possibilities"

Nathalie Glaus was a panelist at the Havas Trend Forum. We spoke with the lawyer about the legal framework for storing personal data and what changes would be necessary.  

WW: Under what conditions is tracking and storing personalized data legally permissible in Switzerland?
Nathalie Glaus: The Data Protection Act protects against misuse of personal data. For anyone collecting personal data, the basic principles of purpose limitation, recognizability and consent apply. Tracking and storing as well as the purpose and scope of data processing must be recognizable. In reality, complex, ongoing data collection and data combining takes place. However, since this data is often collected anonymously, conventional data protection regulations are unable to apply. The law is no longer easily able to cope with today's circumstances and would have to be adapted accordingly. If personal profiles can later be reconstructed from anonymously collected data, then data protection law would also have to cover the collection of anonymous data.

What would such an adjustment of data protection mean for advertisers?
I doubt that allowing anonymized data to be stored or processed only with the user's consent would limit the advertising world immensely. The new technologies also open up great opportunities for users. Everyone loves the fact that there are navigation devices or that they can locate themselves on Google Maps if they get lost. Storing and tracking data is problematic if it is manipulated in a way that is unrecognizable to the user. If the data law principles were extended to the collection of anonymous data, advertising companies would have to disclose how the data is used. Few users would give up their services because of this.

Do you see a need for additional action in addition to improved data protection?
How far regulations should go is not just a legal question, but a sociopolitical one. If Google influences our voting behavior because the company can decide what information we have at our disposal, this affects the very foundation of our democracy and our understanding of the law. The constitution does contain corresponding fundamental rights, such as freedom of opinion and freedom of information. However, no enforceable right can be derived from fundamental rights alone as long as specific concretizing legal provisions for enforcement are lacking. These regulations are lacking in the area of "smart data." If this legal framework is to be created, it must first be discussed and a political decision made. However, the extent of technologization is far from being recognized by everyone.

Interview: Simone Isliker