In the first episode of the latest season of the science-fiction TV series Black Mirror, a young woman鈥檚 reputation is irreparably damaged. In a world where everyone is rated on a five-point scale, her score has fallen, following which everyone around seems to scorn her. Even renting a car results in her being given one of the clunkers at the back.
It has become something of a clich茅 to compare what happens in the show with actual developments in technology. But who can resist, when fiction dovetails so closely with real life? Over the past week, there has been anger over a scheme to offer insurance discounts based on Facebook data 鈥� but the idea shouldn鈥檛 have come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying close attention.
The hullabaloo started when UK firm Admiral Insurance , a scheme offering savings on car insurance. People buying or driving their first car could sign up on Facebook to let the company analyse their profile for activity related to safe driving, generating data that would then be used to calculate a discount according to their personality. Using lists and short sentences, for example, would be seen as signs of conscientiousness. Too many exclamation points earned a demerit for overconfidence.
Advertisement
But, after an outcry from privacy activists, Facebook intervened just two hours before the scheme鈥檚 planned launch yesterday, assuring users that it would not allow violations of its guidelines around user data. 鈥淧rotecting the privacy of the people on Facebook is of utmost importance to us,鈥� said a company spokesperson. Admiral pivoted, turning firstcarquote into a simple 10-question survey.
Facebook made the right call, but it would be wrong to focus on just this one scheme. When you go online, you generate a slew of data about your personality and lifestyle 鈥� and all over the world, organisations have been working on more precise ways to sift through the details.
Last year, for example, 快猫短视频 reported on several schemes that offer loans based on cellphone records or social media activity. Companies argue that they can quickly get a sense of someone鈥檚 character using the data, and that such methods have promise in developing countries or for those without a robust financial history.
Last year was also when China unveiled plans to assign every citizen a 鈥渟ocial credit score鈥� 鈥� a number, crunched using data from various government databases, that would supposedly reflect the person鈥檚 trustworthiness. A handful of Chinese companies are now piloting mini-versions of the programme, assigning users scores according to their online activity and encouraging them to share their score with friends as a mark of their good reputation.
鈥淟oans can be offered based on social media activity, with companies arguing the data can give them a sense of someone鈥檚 character鈥�
Facebook itself may even be interested in finding ways to score users: it has already worked on theoretical projects that aren鈥檛 too different from firstcarquote.
Last year, for example, Facebook that could allocate loans according to the credit scores of your Facebook friends. If their average score is above a certain threshold, your loan application will be processed; if not, you鈥檙e out of luck.
We probably haven鈥檛 seen the last of tracking ideas like these. All raise urgent questions about the degree to which we鈥檙e comfortable with such applications of technology. Does the company really need this information to arrive at a decision? Exactly what details do they have access to and how are they used? Do such schemes lead to people being discriminated against based on age, race or other immutable characteristics?
Now that Admiral has scrapped its plans, you may be relieved to think we鈥檝e dodged a bullet. But we should expect debate over the issues it raises to crop up again and again, as more groups float their own strategies for analysing what we post online. Anyone concerned about their data should buckle up: the fight is far from over.
