Reprint: R0810J
Why is that question in the past tense? Because individuals can no longer feel confident that the details of their lives—from identifying numbers to cultural preferences—will be treated with discretion rather than exploited. Even as Facebook users happily share the names of their favorite books, movies, songs, and brands, they often regard marketers’ use of that information as an invasion of privacy.
In this wide-ranging essay, McCreary, a senior editor at HBR, examines numerous facets of the privacy issue, from Google searches, public shaming on the internet, and cell phone etiquette to passenger screening devices, public surveillance cameras, and corporate chief privacy officers. He notes that IBM has been a leader on privacy; its policy forswearing the use of employees’ genetic information in hiring and benefits decisions predated the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act by three years. Now IBM is involved in an open-source project known as Higgins to provide users with transportable, potentially anonymous online presences. Craigslist, whose CEO calls it “as close to 100% user driven as you can get,” has taken an extremely conservative position on privacy—perhaps easier for a company with a declared lack of interest in maximizing revenue. But TJX and other corporate victims of security breaches have discovered that retaining consumers’ transaction information can be both costly and risky.
Companies that underestimate the importance of privacy to their customers or fail to protect it may eventually face harsh regulation, reputational damage, or both. The best thing they can do, says the author, is negotiate directly with those customers over where to draw the line.
