Just as quickly as the technical possibilities for Big Data ‘farming’ and processing develop, so too do the concerns of the general public, fearing that Big Data invites in Big Brother.
So when does Big Data become Too Big?
Big Data can be sourced from anywhere. The UK government recently clamped down on the use of mobile and static cameras to control parking. Local authorities using number plate recognition systems linked to driver registration databases to deliver fines…that’s just the start, but where does it go next?
A prototype of an Android app developed by GM’s R&D division in China has generated considerable interest this week; using number plate recognition software, DiDi Plate reportedly enables drivers to communicate with other drivers by text message – whether or not both parties have opted in.
We expect security, and we know there’s state surveillance. We expect privacy, too, while having the freedom to publish personal information on social media
The implications of private data falling into the wrong hands, without the knowledge of the user, or to force open channels of communication, don’t need spelling out; neither do the public’s suspicions about how soon such technology might be used by big corporates or other entities.
Last year’s Snowden revelations have widened the debate, highlighting our conflicting interests. We expect security, and we know there’s state surveillance – Hollywood and HBO have kept us ahead of the game there. We expect privacy, too, while having the freedom to publish personal information on social media. Yet look at the outcry when a big corporate is exposed as tracking user activity, or allowing other entities to access that data.
Despite the grey area of ‘opting in’, the rules regarding use of personal data are stricter than people might expect. In a recent Automotive Megatrends webinar, TomTom’s Chief Privacy Officer was surprisingly frank and open about what can and cannot be done with user data, and most of it falls under the ‘cannot’ category.
Nonetheless, there’s a wide gulf between what people think companies are allowed to do with personal data, and what people think those companies really do with that data. What’s interesting is how peoples’ views change if they feel they get something in return. And it’s here where usage-based insurance (UBI) stands to gain, providing it’s correctly pitched. Only paying for what you use seems attractive, but that means having your driving – and driving style – monitored.
There’s a wide gulf between what people think companies are allowed to do with personal data, and what people think those companies really do with that data
Add into the mix the idea of a ‘black box’ being fitted to your car – the easiest and most obvious solution, as far as the insurance industry is concerned – and many would baulk at the idea.
But that same data monitored via a smartphone app carries much greater and wider appeal. After all, so goes the thinking, your phone’s always being tracked, so it’s seen as different and somehow less intrusive.
If insurance can track driver activity, it seems logical that tracking vehicles for law enforcement purposes is only a little further down the line. And if cars are being tracked anyway, there’s no need for those parking enforcement cameras…
Martin Kahl is Editor, Automotive World.
The AutomotiveWorld.com Comment column is open to automotive industry decision makers and influencers. If you would like to contribute a Comment article, please contact editorial@automotiveworld.com.
