Transparency, Data & Too Much News


I do most of my thinking on the train to work in the morning, apparently because my brain is like a computer that runs most efficiently the first few hours after a restart. And today I could not stop thinking about the accuracy of a post by Brian Bergstein, deputy editor of MIT Technology Review.

Bergstein thinks there are problems with our data obsession -- and that "the quest to gather ever more information can make us value the wrong things and grow overconfident about what we know."

What are we really measuring? More importantly, who does it serve to measure and publicize it?

News reporters have been mining everything from police reports to property records for years -- long before the advent of big-data -- in a quest to find salacious, damaging, and embarrassing tidbits of information about anyone with a recognizable name.

The "big" news in New York City recently centers on a nasty domestic dispute between a well-known TV anchor and his equally well-known celebrity wife. Make that former TV anchor: A day after the story of the couple's alleged violent altercation hit the front page of the city's tabloids, he "quit."

Do I care? No. But I'm bringing it up because my daughter asked an interesting question: Is this couple's private hell anything close to news? Moreover, now that big-data has entered the picture, are we likely to see even more non-news than we already do?

Maybe. Bergstein cites a a contentious question on the California ballot in 2008 that inspired a website called Eightmaps.com:

The number in the name referred to Proposition 8, which called for the state's constitution to be amended to prohibit gay marriage. Under California's campaign finance laws, all donations greater than $100 to groups advocating for or against Proposition 8 were recorded in a publicly accessible database. Someone (it's still not clear who) took all the data about the proposition's supporters -- their names and zip codes, and their employers in some cases -- and plotted it on a Google map.

Is that an example of transparency or harassment? I asked myself the same question a few months ago after The Journal News, a Gannett newspaper in suburban New York City, published a map showing the names and home addresses of every gun permit holder in Westchester and Rockland counties. Why? So readers could find out who owned guns in their neighborhood. The newspaper removed the interactive map from its website after a new state law that allows gun-permit holders to request confidentiality was enacted in mid-January.

Who did that serve? Does it make someone feel safer to know a former police officer down the block legally owns a gun? The only data that may make sense to publish is a map of the names and addresses of people who own illegal, unregistered firearms. But that data doesn't exist.

In his post, Bergstein quotes Evgeny Morozov, a contributing editor at The New Republic and the author of The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom and To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism.

In To Save Everything Click Here, Morozov cites the Eightmaps episode "to support his claim that "Internet-centrism" is warping our view of what's truly important."

Transparency is ascending at the expense of other values, Morozov suggests, mainly because it is so cheap and easy to use the Internet to distribute data that might someday prove useful. And because we're so often told that the Internet has liberated us from the controls that 'gatekeepers' had on information, rethinking the availability of information seems retrograde -- and the tendency toward openness gathers even more force. (Notice that Facebook says its mission is 'to make the world more open and transparent.')

Is this the new normal? Is it good? Should we accept the transparency of, well, everything and anything as an inevitability or do what Morozov suggests: Demand that today's increasingly easily accessed databases respect values beyond mere transparency?

It's an interesting question. But any discussion, in my mind, should revolve around a very basic question... specifically, "Who does the data serve?"

Are we forgetting that question by being too quick to publicize all kinds of data? Tell us how you feel by taking our new quick poll in the right-hand column!

Noreen Seebacher,

Noreen Seebacher, the Community Editor of Investor Uprising, has been a business journalist for more than 20 years. A New York City based writer and editor, she has worked for numerous print and online publications. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, the New York Post, New York’s Daily News, The Detroit News, and the Pittsburgh Press. She co-edited five newsletters for Real Estate Media’s GlobeSt.com and served as the site's technology editor.

She also championed the commercial real estate beat at The Journal News, a Gannett publication in suburban New York City, and co-founded a Website focused on personal finance. Through her own company, Stasa Media, Noreen has produced reports, whitepapers, and internal publications for a number of Fortune 500 clients. When she's not writing, editing, or Web surfing, she relaxes in an 1875 Victorian with her husband and their five kids, four formerly homeless cats, and a dog.

Big-Data Draws Attention at Interop New York

Even at a trade fair better known for seminars on information technology, big-data was too significant to ignore.

Time to Tame the Meta-Monster

All Analytics readers have serious issues with the data hidden in digital photos.


Re: Majority Rules
  • 3/11/2013 12:27:35 AM
NO RATINGS

@Ariella  Good point, that data we need is not stored and apparently the data we have is plastered all over the place.  Those who deal with this kind of data should be thinking as you mention, and working on a means to really bring value and seek to find the answers that we don't know - in this case who owns illegal firearms.

Re: Majority Rules
  • 3/11/2013 12:20:16 AM
NO RATINGS

I do agree with those who wonder if data for data sake is necessary.  I really do think it has cheapened the Information Age.  Instead of using "transparency" responsibly - it now rests in the hands of people just looking to fill time or space. 

I often wonder if we (mankind) are smart enough to use our new tools responsibly.  Well no need to wonder. The answer is No.

Re: Majority Rules
  • 3/6/2013 8:13:32 AM
NO RATINGS

That is very possible, I assume every bit of data about me can find its way to the public at some point. Most of it never will, but I think it's safest to assume all data has a path to the public eye somehow.

Re: Majority Rules
  • 3/6/2013 7:45:59 AM
NO RATINGS

Maybe the problem is that many people don't realize what data is public - and then feel blindsided when they realize other people can access the information

Re: Majority Rules
  • 3/5/2013 10:55:10 PM
NO RATINGS

Noreen, it is toung and cheek, but really, for me public data is just that. My view (and I have probably said this before) The more you put out there, the harder it becomes to sift through. So, I say put it out there, people are going to find it anyway. 

Re: Majority Rules
  • 3/5/2013 7:44:53 PM
NO RATINGS

When I saw that the Huffington Post published my donation amount to Hillary Clinton, along with a map with an arrow pointing to my house, It felt a little weird.  Yet those things are public record. 

I was also weird to to look at the list of Prop 8. donars and see co-workers and one of San Francisco Muni agents on the list. 

It's not new that these list exsist or are public, but today they are just so darn available that anyone can pull them up. 

Before, one had to at least get off their but and drive down to the town hall to learn that your neighbor took you to court over a tree encrouching on their property. 

There is a quote I'm paraphrasing.  "I used to wonder what it would be like to have pyschic powers and know what people where thinking.  Now, thanks to Facebook, I know it's mostly stupid stuff." 

Re: Majority Rules
  • 3/5/2013 7:20:00 PM
NO RATINGS

Lol bulk!

Re: Majority Rules
  • 3/5/2013 4:09:09 PM
NO RATINGS

Broadview Heights, OH, 238K, Democrat. 

Re: Majority Rules
  • 3/5/2013 4:07:43 PM
NO RATINGS

Noreen, Speaking for myself, if it is public record, then yes. Private information is another story. 

Re: Majority Rules
  • 3/5/2013 1:08:37 PM
NO RATINGS

So anything is fair game? Where you live, how much you paid for your home, your political affiliation, etc?

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
INFORMATION RESOURCES
ANALYTICS IN ACTION
CARTERTOONS
VIEW ALL +
QUICK POLL
VIEW ALL +