2nd David Farber Prize for Undergraduate Student Essay
First Prize
Edited 05. 2021

Lying in Wait
What Does More Data Mean for Us?

Leif Lincoln
Faculty of Economics
30 December 2020

A member of the lepidoptera order of insects — commonly known as butterfly —moves along close to the bio-diverse forest floor. Traversing from place to place it
is looking for spots to stop, with flowers providing the ideal target. The mutually
beneficial connection between the lepidoptera and flowers applies to those with theevolutionary advantage of flight. They come and go between the flowers which offer
sweet nectar in return for pollination and the chance for reproduction. As the lepidoptera
passes through the air bordering the forest floor, it spots the magnificent spectacle
produced by a flower of the Orchidaceous order. This appears to be a perfect stop,
for both rest and rejuvenation. But unbeknownst to itself, this orchid will ultimately
become the lepidoptera’s final resting place.
The Hymenopus coronatus, also known as the walking flower mantis or orchid mantis,
is a predatory insect native to the rainforests of Southeast Asia. With the brilliant colorsof chartreuse, floral white, and violet illuminating its thorax and prothoracic shield, themantis shows off eloquent beauty and an unmatched skill for imitation. As its namesuggests, the mantis deceives its prey by imitating a blooming orchid, which is a sourceof food for many insects including lepidoptera. Contrary to common belief, the mantis
does not hide in or among orchids. Instead, it exists disguised in plain sight and lies in
wait for an unsuspecting visitor.
Life and industry in the 21st century are defined by the relentless progress andexpansion of information technology with its unabating drive towards data collection.
While computer processing power and hardware have also significantly advanced since
the turn of the century, data is viewed as king. The value of information and data heldon consumers is crucial to the business models of big tech companies. For these typesof interactions between company and end user, the company provides a service. Enduser data constitutes the product to which advertisement, sales and other forms ofmonetizing manipulation are applied. This is the point then where society is inclined tojump the gun and scream “1984.” As much as there are undeniable consequences andpossibilities for the misuse of ‘private’ information at the industry or state level, there isalso a profound misunderstanding of the underlying situation regarding data collection1and information technology. The most outstanding infringements of individual autonomy in information data seem to happen right in front of consumers’ eyes, yet out ofsight. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

Coexistence: Deception
Just as there is a connection between the butterfly, the flower, and the mantis innature, a very similar, surreal situation exists in the realm of modern information
technology. In this case, both consumers and technology companies support a mutually
beneficial relationship. As a company provides a service to its consumer, the consumer
helps the company repopulate its data store using two distinct methods: the humanelement and data provision.
The simpler of the two, the human element tends to act as a raw catalyst for consumer
base growth through communication and social influences. Amidst influencers, social
media, and even day to day online communication among social circles, the complex
nature of interpersonal relations shows how the consumer base can expand throughservices on the information technology platform. This is equally true for products
spread through traditional social contact. The social element has, time and time again,
proved to be a decisive element for the sporadic but wide-reaching proliferation ofcertain products. Looking back at the “Tulip Mania” prevalent in Holland in the 1600’s,
word of mouth among consumers affected the breadth of the boom significantly. We
see the working of the human element in the speculation that drove the tulip market toastounding heights. One Semper Augustus tulip bulb sold for astonishing prices in thetens of thousands of dollars in today’s money (Garber, 1989). Evident in that market
and in a multitude of similar situations throughout history, the human factor plays an
undeniably significant role in the spreading and popularizing of products. Throughtrial and error, companies have come to understand the necessity of perfecting thiscapturing of the human element to maximize reach.
Data provision and its subsequent usage in the technology company, however, is amore complex topic. In this case, a company utilizes consumer data in order to reinvent
and improve itself in an effort to grow. It does so by keeping tabs on search queries,
personal information, and anything else that might find its way into its hands. Hereconsumer data is used to build efficiencies on the part of the company to provide a better
platform with broader reach, just as the flower needs the butterfly to avoid stagnationand keep reproducing. The relationship between consumers and the company is anever-evolving cycle beneficial to both parties as the consumer keeps consuming and thecompany growing.
The combination of these two seeding techniques puts the addition of new users (i.e.,
consumers) at the center, whereby the platform’s growth is defined by the integrationof human and data collection elements. This integration may be visualized in terms ofa raceme, as found in flowers [Figure 1]. Each raceme, in turn, joins a larger panicle
structure which represents the platform as a whole. Here the tree of connections
illustrates the repetitive cycle of improvement, capture, and expansion of the platform.
Consumers and companies work hand in hand, providing mutual benefits for one
another, but there is also the mantis. Not every flower is a mantis in disguise though the2threat of landing on one isvery real. It is extremelyCompany & Consumer Growthdifficult to determine theCompany
Consumerdifference between a comGrowth
Growthpany with malicious or misC
H
H
chievous intentions from one
C D
Dwith genuine intentions. The
Hvast majority of data misD C
H
use happens behind closed
DC
D
H
doors out of the public eye.
H
This is the case with phishC
H
D
ing and other fraudulent
HH
activities hunting for dataH
while mimicking the role ofthe mantis. These kindsof scams seek to profit byfalsely representing widely
Growthtrusted companies in both
emails and websites. While
RacemePaniclethese activities pose a sigHuman Connection
ConsumerDatanificant security risk to consumers, they are often interFigure 1: Visualizing the raceme and panicle structures.
preted in pop culture and the
media as a step toward an
authoritarian dystopia basedon false trust.
On the other hand, the road to more concerning actions akin to authoritarian levelsof power and control is a different type of ‘pseudo-orchid’ company that offers a realplatform for consumers to benefit from while dishonestly using or collecting data. At
first glance, this type of company would seem credible enough in providing a genuine
service to their consumers; however, customer information and personal data wouldfind their way into devious usage situations outside the platform’s ‘storefront.’
Most importantly, thesecompanies maintain powerDataover users through instilling
Data
Company
Consumer
Fraud
trust in the unavoidability
Platformof their operations. Nathan
Platform
Newman hints that if there
Needs ChangePoweris no realistic alternative forData
the services this type of com"Evolved"
pany offers, consumers may
Company
not be able to stop providing information to it or see
Figure 2: The tri-party ecosystem and the fourth party.
any way to cut themselves
off from it (Newman, 2014).

3

The real danger in this tri-party ecosystem of information technology is, in fact, not a
distinct party at all. It is the mutant outgrowth of an environment that compels companies ballooning in size to surreptitiously take advantage of, prey on, and exploit theirconsumers. Unlike security breaches that characterize the actions of the mantis in theecosystems, the rise of companies that exploit their consumers through credible trust is
an entirely different breed [Figure 2]. This transformation is a prospect for any company
or organization that manages the information of individuals. A trusted company today
can become a ‘trusted’ predatory company tomorrow.

Dystopian Parallelisms
The notion of a dystopian era in which people succumb to a relentless government
under the prudent eye of an oppressive overlord is a widely covered topic throughout
history. From political rebels to thoughtful commentators, the fear of being pushed
toward a situation of perceived despotism is a fear that, under given circumstances,
all people seem to hold. How humans treat each other, historically, sheds light on thisfear with the abhorring results of the battle for power: enslavement, persecution, andwar. It is this fear that drives uncertainty with and opposition to the massive push of
information technology and data collection that marks the 21st century.
To control one’s fears, one must first understand them. The same is true regarding theprevention of a dystopian collision course. Power is vested in those with the propensity
to exert change or authority over others. In the age of information technology, moredata is more power. Even as companies and organizations collect an increasing amountof data from their consumer base, the bulk of data is not analyzed or used to effect andinstead awaits its day in storage (Coughlin et al., 2017). It is from this storage that thegreatest danger to privacy and individual autonomy come to light.
Collected data divides into two broad categories: active and passive data. Active
data primarily encompasses the data which consumers give to companies. This information stems from the input fields when creating or updating an account, including
sensitive data connecting users to the real world through bank accounts and addresses,
though account numbers and names can hardly provide insight into the core thoughts
and alignments of a person. Predictions, connections, and the very tuning of a person’s
mind all come from passive data inferences, i.e., the data the company collects without
us even realizing it. Time elapsed, links clicked, and connected friends are all examplesof the indicators that passive data goes out to capture (Younes, 2019). A given platform
can record every action of the consumer to the smallest degree. This data and its usage
are mostly unknown to the consumer as it works to build a digital image of their mind
and preferences. This image is the link that connects the physical existence of a person
to the map of his or her deepest corners of the mind.
Such a map can be viewed and analyzed in a large number of ways. For example, thedata collected may provide (circumstantial) evidence of misguided action, serious blunders or breaking away from the wishes of the moderators in power, all of which could
lead to self- condemnation if the person concerned only knew about it. A contemporary
example of this behavior exists in the connection between pretextual evidence andunenforced law. Quite law-abiding citizens are at risk of breaking spurious, unknown4

laws every day but go unpunished due to the mild nature of non-adherence. However,these unenforced laws act as the backbone for official pretext and a less than honest interaction with authorities (Blanks, 2016). Authorities might well enforce non-adherencewith these laws not as a means of punishment for the underlying action but as one
based on ulterior motives and thereby, in essence, bestow themselves power from themere propensity to exercise it.
Driving in Los Angeles with an air freshener hanging from the rear-view mirror
in violation of California Vehicle Code § 22708(a) — a minor law aimed at preventing
obstruction of view which can be applied pretextually in such insignificant instants —will most likely not increase the likelihood of penalty subjection; yet, it is a testament toauthorities’ propensity to exert power. The same idea applies to technology companies.
What do they do when they no longer need to focus on growing consumer numbers?
The possibility for large, trusted companies to become predatory due to a stagnant
or declining capturable population is nearing reality. Mega global tech companies nolonger have the capturable population that they once did in their beginning years. A
tight spot will cause companies to evolve and find new methods to maintain power andgrowth moving forward if they have not already begun to do so.
Big companies collecting big data pose a two-dimensional threat to individualautonomy and freedom if in the hands of a single governing entity possessing boththe means and the motive to cross ethical boundaries. First, the immense stockpilingof personal information leaves individuals open to power abuse as everything is on
record, no matter how insignificant. It is only human that people make mistakes, but
information storage leads to the potential leveraging of that information. Second, theimmense amount of data available to companies today leaves open the possibilityof large-scale deception or manipulation through the fine-tuning of individual data
consumption. Nathan Newman shows that large data companies have already begun
to take advantage of the most vulnerable through behavioral profiling and the quotingof differential prices for goods and services (Newman, 2014). The dynamic fine-tuningof media preferences is cause for great concern given the abilities of and the extent towhich those holding information on a person’s preferences can go. Should companies
or organizations that hold information resources fall under less than unanimous or
outright malicious management, the autonomy of the individual will come under threatwith potentially devastating effects.

Defining Privacy
Considering all the information the user provides freely, including that which is obtained through passive data, the question of privacy arises. Security is largely foundedon the right to privacy. The tendency to entrust one’s data and thereby one’s safety over
information platforms rests on the assumption that the data remains unknown to others.
However, this trust also produces intense fear of both big data and the power that thesekeepers hold over the population on a personal level. Looking past the implicit security
risk, it is essential to acknowledge how this potential guillotine over consumers’ heads
has changed the notion of privacy. What is it, and how has it changed since the dawn of
the internet?

5

Before the advent of social media, the internet and even the dictaphone, accountability could not be purely objective. In primitive societies thousands of years ago
claims of one individual against another did not — in themselves — provide a basis
for the verification of truth. We can infer that although people were privileged to havecomplete privacy in this sense, they were no better off with it. Technology has given
us the power to resolve such claims with verification. However, it is this very ability
that people are now afraid of and which leads to calls for privacy protection. People are
not inclined to trust technology that is not understood but rather trust the person in
charge — for better or worse. At this point a problem arises in the modern age. How canconsumers maintain privacy vis-à-vis controlling consumer data while also preserving
the reliability and truthfulness that technology can provide? The answer lies in control.
Consumers must return balance to the information ecosystem and oust manipulative,
controlling, and dishonest practices while calling for autonomy over their own information. Current focuses on sensitive data protection do exist, such as demonstrated by
the novel blockchain software. Still, the initiative to push for autonomous consumer
control over all data collected both knowingly and unknowingly is not nearly strong
enough. After all, it is the unknown that can hurt the most.

End Game — Trust is Good, Control is Better
The ability to afford trust is good, but control will always reign supreme. Techcompanies and consumers alike both gain and lose substantially from changes in theirability to control information. Complete control over information allows companies andorganizations to act in accordance with free will and bend the consumer to their desire.
The next step, an oligopolistic consensus among information controlling authorities
and management, would pose a grave risk to consumers with parallels to a 1984-likedystopian society, where authority has total control over its subjects. The simple tri-party
system of two mutual beneficiaries and a clearly fraudulent predator to take advantageof this relationship is no longer dominant. A new party of malignant beneficiaries has
arisen that is stronger than the swindling predator could have ever been, out to attract
its prey, and exert and retain power. It is currently a minute to midnight where thefuture will come to rest in the hands of those with most control over information.

6

References
Blanks, J. (2016). Thin Blue Lies: How Pretextual Stops Undermine Police Legitimacy.
Case Western Reserve Law Review, 66(4), 931–946.
Coughlin, T., Hoyt, R., & Handy, J. (2017). https://www.ieee.org/content/dam/ieeeorg/ieee/web/org/about/corporate/ieee-industry-advisory-board/digitalstorage-memory-technology.pdf
Garber, P. M. (1989). Who Put The Mania In Tulipmania? The Journal of Portfolio Management, 16(1), 53–60.
Newman, N. (2014). How Big Data Enables Economic Harm to Consumers, Especiallyto Low-income and Other Vulnerable Sectors of the Population. Journal of Internet
Law, 18(6), 11–23.
Younes, A. S. (2019). Passive Violation of Consumers’ Privacy Rights on the Internet in
the Age of Emerging Data Capital. Journal of Content, Community and Communication, 10(9), 134–150.

7