Nakedness is big news unless you are in a nudist camp.

How we talk about privacy matters.

The COVIDSafe app has been a constant in the media lately, and rightly so. This opinion piece is not about telling anyone how I feel about the issue or if I have downloaded the app on my iPhone. The following will not argue the pros and cons of the COVIDSafe app, nor will it bash technology.

My aim is to look at the broader cultural context and attempt to decode how the media have been talking about privacy, and what it could mean for brands. Interestingly, many in the media have shown a certain disdain towards anyone questioning the COVIDSafe app and its associated privacy issues and this, I believe, is very interesting in our line of work.

At the time I write this blog, we are looking at 5 million downloads from a pool of 16 million adult smartphone users. We can easily deduce that many people, and not just a handful of ‘irresponsibles’ as they are described in much of the media, may not be as desensitised to the idea of privacy as we think.

Privacy is recognised by the UN as a Human Right and is defined as ‘the ability to selectively expose yourself to society’. Lynn Margulis, the American biologist talks about privacy as a way to enhance our autonomy and minimise our vulnerability.

Now let us put this back in the context of the COVIDSafe app. We are being asked to expose our health (this is my status) and decrease our perceived autonomy (this is who I am in contact with, my movements) while displaying our potential vulnerability (laying our lives bare).

It is surprising that some media commentators have been doing their absolute best to shut down any form of debate on privacy, instead they have turned the conversation into an argument of ‘us vs. them’.

The below is a compilation of headlines and soundbites from articles, published in the SMH, News.com.au, Dailymail and The Age, that demonstrate this divisive tone. Individuals that express privacy concerns are framed as selfish, not part of the norm, against the community, the government, the economy, the country.

1. Reframing the narrative around guilt…“Not about you, but us”, “if you don’t download the coronavirus tracing app, you are selfish”
2. Reframing the narrative so rejection is seen as being against team Australia...“Good for us”, “you don’t trust the government, get over yourself”, “missing the pub this arvo…well, download the app”
3. Reframing the lack or absence of privacy as the new social norm...“Google already knows everything”, “should be compulsory”, “I am a technology expert and I have downloaded the app”

The current narrative is a complete U-turn on recent media coverage about privacy. Up until very recently media (and beyond) stressed the importance of caution when it came to technology designed to track, trace and monitor. In no order, think…Snowden, Wikileaks, Facebook Cambridge Analytica, WW3 will be fought on the internet, Black mirror, Mass surveillance in China, surveillance economy etc. etc. etc. 

The ‘responsible’ reaction was to be fearful, considered, and suspicious about ‘tracing technology’s’ intent and motivation, while demanding complete transparency around collection, storage, and access to data. 

The 2016 Census was slammed by the Australian Privacy Foundation for breaching the public’s trust, and the national media pounced like vultures. Just last year politicians and media personalities alike proudly declared their concern and opposition to the national My Health Record, as they were collectively “against the expansion of police state type power”.

Regardless how well intentioned organistations and brands are, they can’t afford to treat people with contempt. It is only natural for people to express cautious distrust towards digital intrusions on privacy.

In today’s digital age, as personalised customer journeys become the norm, privacy and trust will become increasingly important. Reflecting on the past few weeks, here are six points on how to use consumer data ethically.

• Privacy needs to be part of the brand commitment and integral to the value equation.
• Be very clear on the ‘need to know’ vs. ‘the right to know’, they are not the same thing.
• Privacy and retention should not be mixed, build in as many ‘opt out’ options that you have ‘opt in’ tactics.
• By definition the consumer’s need for personalisation is contradictory to the consumer need for privacy, don’t make privacy a trade-off, give customers control to decide the kind of personalisation they want.
• Focus on the benefits of the value exchange, not the potential loss or negative repercussions of no involvement, or ‘not opting in’. A greater customer experience should always be the end goal regardless of how much data you have.
• Deliver a sense of control and usefulness, we all need to know our data is useful, that our actions can contribute positively to my goals be it money, discounts, or services.