ditto my above comment. If netflix says data will be collected and then anonymized in its TOS, and it does so, then it acted in good faith. If a hacker reveals a weakness and Netflix pulls the plug, should they be sued?
If yes, then how can companies innovate, when they will constantly fear liability?
You think the amount of effort by Netflix to protect the identities of its costumers was enough. It was not. They intentionally released an amount of information, thinking none of its costumers could be traced, but guess what? They were.
Yes, it had to be used with other datasets to discover individuals, but Netflix ignored (you say acted in good faith) this possibility and decided to go ahead.
They were ignorant of the implications of the data they released. They didn't saw the possibilities that their costumers could be found. They were stupid and reckless.
The problem is that you're thinking about this situation as the researcher, the person who wants the data set to play with. Put yourself into the company's shoes. You want to improve the recommendation algorithm. You hold a contest, which needs the costumer data to work. But you know that your costumers won't be happy to have their info released, so you go and anonymize the data.
See where I am going? You had an idea, executed, but the consequences were bad. Imagine if car companies acted this way, one morning an engineer comes to work and puts a new brake system in the company's car already in production thinking it'll be awesome and work ten times better than the previous brakes. Without rigorous, government and industry trials, experiments and tests.
Good idea, poor execution. Netflix doesn't have "good faith", they wanted to improve their recommendation algorithm. They wanted to profit. Now, I don't have anything against profits. But it's naive to think Netflix did this for the benefit of mankind. They had their own reasons, and to achieve that, they've broken a promise to their costumers. They said: Hey, we'll keep on our database this information, but don't worry, none will ever know it.
But then they go and _relase_ costumer data, _thinking_ it's sufficiently anonymized. They were wrong. Double mistake there. The "hacker" wasn't alone in this, "he" had a direct help of the company which was supposed to not let this happen.
I agree that if Netflix knew the data could be de-anonymized then they are liable. Just like if I bank knows that an identity thief is the emptying a customers bank account and does not stop it, they are liable.
The same way they do now. (Successful) companies don't fear liability: they prepare for it but realize that they will never be 100% insulated.
You weigh your options: if the benefits of doing something outweigh the costs (including lawsuit outcomes, poor public perception, etc) by enough of a margin, then you forge ahead.
It's a balancing act. You can take away the right of people to hold companies accountable for their actions, and this would really free up businesses to innovate without fear of reprisal. This would also open it up for businesses to 'innovate' in 'cost-savings' where 100% of the risks are borne by their customers. Do you advocate living in a world where corporations are free from fear, allowing them to do whatever they want? Do you really believe that corporations always operate in the best interests of their customers? Do you really think that the general population are the customers for most businesses (i.e. most people feel that they are 'customers' of the cable/television companies, but in reality the advertisers are the customers and the general population is the product)?
Comments
ditto my above comment. If netflix says data will be collected and then anonymized in its TOS, and it does so, then it acted in good faith. If a hacker reveals a weakness and Netflix pulls the plug, should they be sued?
If yes, then how can companies innovate, when they will constantly fear liability?
You think the amount of effort by Netflix to protect the identities of its costumers was enough. It was not. They intentionally released an amount of information, thinking none of its costumers could be traced, but guess what? They were.
Yes, it had to be used with other datasets to discover individuals, but Netflix ignored (you say acted in good faith) this possibility and decided to go ahead.
They were ignorant of the implications of the data they released. They didn't saw the possibilities that their costumers could be found. They were stupid and reckless.
The problem is that you're thinking about this situation as the researcher, the person who wants the data set to play with. Put yourself into the company's shoes. You want to improve the recommendation algorithm. You hold a contest, which needs the costumer data to work. But you know that your costumers won't be happy to have their info released, so you go and anonymize the data.
See where I am going? You had an idea, executed, but the consequences were bad. Imagine if car companies acted this way, one morning an engineer comes to work and puts a new brake system in the company's car already in production thinking it'll be awesome and work ten times better than the previous brakes. Without rigorous, government and industry trials, experiments and tests.
Good idea, poor execution. Netflix doesn't have "good faith", they wanted to improve their recommendation algorithm. They wanted to profit. Now, I don't have anything against profits. But it's naive to think Netflix did this for the benefit of mankind. They had their own reasons, and to achieve that, they've broken a promise to their costumers. They said: Hey, we'll keep on our database this information, but don't worry, none will ever know it.
But then they go and _relase_ costumer data, _thinking_ it's sufficiently anonymized. They were wrong. Double mistake there. The "hacker" wasn't alone in this, "he" had a direct help of the company which was supposed to not let this happen.
I agree that if Netflix knew the data could be de-anonymized then they are liable. Just like if I bank knows that an identity thief is the emptying a customers bank account and does not stop it, they are liable.
The same way they do now. (Successful) companies don't fear liability: they prepare for it but realize that they will never be 100% insulated.
You weigh your options: if the benefits of doing something outweigh the costs (including lawsuit outcomes, poor public perception, etc) by enough of a margin, then you forge ahead.
It's a balancing act. You can take away the right of people to hold companies accountable for their actions, and this would really free up businesses to innovate without fear of reprisal. This would also open it up for businesses to 'innovate' in 'cost-savings' where 100% of the risks are borne by their customers. Do you advocate living in a world where corporations are free from fear, allowing them to do whatever they want? Do you really believe that corporations always operate in the best interests of their customers? Do you really think that the general population are the customers for most businesses (i.e. most people feel that they are 'customers' of the cable/television companies, but in reality the advertisers are the customers and the general population is the product)?