Digital Marketplaces Unleashed
Page 9
27.
C. Vercellone, From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Maxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism, Bd. 15, Hist. Mater., 2007, pp. 13–36.Crossref
28.
P. Virno, A Grammar Of The Multitude – For an Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life, Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press – Foreign Agents, 2004.
29.
C. Winter, “The TEDification of Corporate America,” Businessweek, New York, 2014.
Footnotes
1As pointed out by [28, p. 106] the general intellect includes “formal and informal knowledge, imagination, ethical propensities, mindsets, and ‘linguistic games’”, becoming “attribute of living labor when the activity of latter consists increasingly of linguistic services”.
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018
Claudia Linnhoff-Popien, Ralf Schneider and Michael Zaddach (eds.)Digital Marketplaces Unleashedhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49275-8_7
7. Consumers’ Digital Self-Determination: Everything Under Control?
Britta Krahn1 and Christian Rietz2
(1)Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences, Rheinbach, Germany
(2)University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Britta Krahn (Corresponding author)
Email: britta.krahn@h-brs.de
Christian Rietz
Email: christian.rietz@uni-koeln.de
7.1 Introduction
The analysis and usage of steadily increasing data sets from business processes and from consumer interactions and the intelligent data linking offer enormous development potential for the digital economy [1]. Collection and analysis of consumer data by companies with regard to competitive advantages as such is not new [2]. However, with smartphones playing an increasingly crucial role – used by 63% of the German consumers aged 14 and over in 2015 with a continued upward trend [3] – the comprehensive data, which are not only collected but now also generated and transmitted by the users themselves, are evolving from an attractive byproduct to the center of a digital economy [4].
Meanwhile, the value chains of the digital and the analog world are inextricably linked; partially, digital channels even replace brick‐and‐mortar offerings so that not only the exchange of products and services but also the communication between provider and consumer is changing fundamentally. The new “currency” and foundation of many current business models is personal information in the form of socio‐demographic data, location and movement data and, in particular, data concerning current and prior preferences, behaviors, habits, life situations, and needs. The exchange of information and data has not only become faster, more diverse, more comprehensive and more direct but also more automated, more specific to situations and persons than in the time before mobile Internet technologies.
This can be viewed favorably, as a development towards a “desired state, where knowledge of customers leads to ultra‐efficient communication to exactly the right target audiences about product/service offerings perfectly matching the needs and desires of those same groups” [5, 6]. Actually, the conveniences of an offer tailored to changing individual situations and individual needs and which is easily accessible, consumable independent of time and location, maybe even via “one click” (such as Amazon for example), is a welcome simplification of everyday purchasing methods and purchasing decisions for many consumers. At the same time, in many cases this leads consumers to “willingly, even eagerly, part with intimate details of their lives” [7]. In this context, a rather imbalanced ratio can often be observed between the high value of the data divulged voluntarily and/or involuntarily and the low value of the consideration received, for instance in the form of information on web pages or apps or minor price savings [8–11]. On the one hand, there are great opportunities in respect of partaking and accessing digital or digitally issued products and services for a larger, and due to the increasing dissemination of mobile communication technologies still growing, share of consumers. Fully‐informed consumers become business partners on an equal footing and can use their freedom of choice in the competition of the various providers to their advantage. On the other hand there are risks, among others with regard to the right of informational or “digital” self‐determination1, often also discussed in respect of data security [12]. Often in this context, rather oversimplified attributions draw attention, contrasting the risks of non‐transparent, purely growth‐driven business models, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, citizens’ basic mistrust in “the Internet” and the market players involved. In view of highly complex technologies and value chains that are difficult to comprehend such simplifications are understandable. However, they do not befit a more differentiated approach to permanently and fast changing market environments which is needed if the adjustments to existing regulations in partially entirely new fields of interaction in the digital space are meant to balance the interests of providers and consumers. So far, the general effort of collecting, processing or using no personal data or as little personal data as possible has been considered one of the most appropriate means of data protection (such data avoidance and data economy is required by section 3a of the German Federal Data Protection Act, BDSG2).
Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also specifies everyone’s right to protection of personal data on him/her.3
When digital data become, on the one hand, the raw material for value added and attractive products for connected life and work, it appears on the other hand, that these principles do not suffice any longer and/or need to be addressed. Not least because due to technical reasons alone the cross‐linking of economy and society generates large amounts of new data, often even without consumers’ acknowledgment and the creation of which they cannot prevent. Further, a (re‑)assessment has to consider both the balance between the value for the consumer and the individual costs (and, in the next stage, the social costs) as well as how these short‐ and long‐term effects relate to each other.
A further complication lies in the fact that this assessment changes relatively quickly in the course of the development of technology itself, human‐machine‐interaction, and the subjective user experience [13]. Therefore, regulations with regard to protecting personal data based on consumer‐oriented digital self‐determination should be flexible enough to enable appropriate responses to these developments. Another problem is that data protection, data security, and data usage issues are often viewed from what is feasible from a technical or legal point of view, yet the majority of the existing principles and consumer protection provisions originate in the analog world.
However, a strictly consumer‐oriented consideration of the opportunities and risks of digitization to consumers and deriving corresponding measures is also made difficult by the fact that with many issues and problems it is not that easy to determine what constitutes a desirable consumer‐orientation in that context. Consumers’ security concerns and/or actual vulnerabilities on the one hand and extensive disclosure of personal data on the other hand often go together. This phenomenon, known as “Privacy Paradox” [14], is not restricted to the digital world, but it has greater significance here because although opportunities and risks are often much higher, the consequences are hardly comprehensible and data, once disclosed, are hard to erase. Also, it is possible that there no longer exists a direct ownership which would allow an immediate, direct intervention.
In this context, more attention should be given to the consumers’ subjective experience with regard to their own data sovereignty and thus their digital self‐determination; empirical approaches in particular are suited to shed light on this topic. But the latter are still seldom to be found. The systematic collection of consumers’ own perception of their digital self‐determination could for instance make a useful contribution to target audience‐orientated communica
tion, information, and awareness‐raising as key prerequisite for acting competently in the world of the Internet of Things and digital business processes.
Against this background, a study commissioned by Deutsche Telekom AG in 2016 and conducted by the Cologne Center for Ethics, Rights, Economics, and Social Sciences of Health (CERES) explored the digital self‐determination from the consumer perspective [15]. The study provides answers to the following key questions related to consumers’ digital self‐determination: “What is a coherent, plausible concept of ‘digital self‐determination’?” (philosophical interest)
“How can we measure (dimensions of) ‘digital self‐determination’? Which empirical phenomena/causalities are part of this theoretical construct?” (social science interest)
7.2 Components of Digital Self Determination
Mertz et al. [15] build a comprehensive, theoretically determined framework model which provides, first, a definition of digital self‐determination and, second, also derives influencing factors and determinants.4 Accordingly, digital self‐determination consists of the following dimensions competency,
level of information,
values,
voluntariness,
will‐formation,
options,
behavior.
This comprehensive and theoretically sound analysis and definition of digital self‐determination allows an empirical analysis of how consumers perceive and act on this very digital self‐determination.
7.3 Empirical Findings on Digital Self‐Determination
Ultimately, one could spend a long time pondering the term digital self‐determination from the various specialist perspectives and background experiences, proposing working hypotheses on how consumers assess themselves with regard to self‐determination and how this assessment affects actual (consumer) behavior. Up until now, there were no empirically substantiated answers in this area and many approaches dealing with the topic of self‐determination from both providers’ and consumers’ perspective are rather anecdotal in nature. Only the study by Mertz et al. [15], surveying a representative sample of N = 1056 German Internet users, now provides answers on how “normal Internet users” assess themselves with regard to digital self‐determination and its components (for sample composition [15]). Specifically, the study explores the following questions from a consumer perspective: 1.How competent do consumers feel conducting digital transactions?
2.How informed are consumers about the “rules of the game” in the digital world?
3.Which concerns and expectations do consumers associate with digitization?
4.Just how “voluntary” is the participation in the digital world at present?
5.How important is the Internet for the freedom of expression and will‐formation?
6.Are consumers at the Internet’s mercy or do they experience certain options?
7.How do consumers behave in the web? (from their perspective)
7.3.1 Competency
With respect to competency it is shown that most Internet users have the feeling that they find information which is relevant for them. With respect to finding information only 23% of the respondents state that it is difficult to find desired information. Another question, which is highly relevant in view of digital consumption, referred to evaluating the transparency of online ordering processes. 74% of the users know which required fields need to be filled in and which optional entries are possible. Yet, when ordering online, 27% of the respondents are uncertain as to at which point an order is binding, which indicates a certain level of uncertainty.
All in all, digital transactions are considered comprehensible and also the acquisition of information (no longer) poses a hurdle.
7.3.2 Level of Information
91% of the Internet users believe that it is important to know which personal data on them are stored. On the other hand, there is a huge mistrust particularly concerning these data as 82% of the users are convinced that most companies also share these data with other companies. Apparently this is not only a question of trust but also of transparency since 85% of the Internet users also firmly believe that it is not possible to find out which private companies or government agencies store their customers’ personal data. This concern not only applies to the use of paid offerings, 87% of the Internet users also believe this to apply to free applications. 78% of the Internet users assume that data once published, stored respectively on the web cannot be removed by the users themselves; this result shows a significant “loss of control” over one’s own data. Fitting in with this result is the finding that 84% of the respondents assume it to be very cumbersome to get information about the data stored about them. In general, 88% of the respondents would like to have an influence on the sharing of data in the web.
Most Internet users assume that many of their data are stored. Apart from the fact that most consumers would like to have an influence on the sharing of data, most users are rather helpless with regard to the amount of data stored and the control of these data.
7.3.3 Expectations of Digitization
As can be expected, the attitude towards digitization is ambivalent: 80% attribute great opportunities to the increasing digitization, but 55% of the respondents view the increasing digitization of everyday life with concern.
It is of major importance for 94% of the respondents that programs and applications are easy (and transparent) to handle, which includes high usability [13].
Apart from the classic “skepticism towards technology”, it is shown that the opportunities of digitization have been recognized by all parts of the population. Progressive digitization can be supported by an ever improving usability and transparency.
7.3.4 Voluntariness
86% of the Internet users in Germany still assume that in all areas it is their decision whether they want to use digital media. Then again, 95% of the respondents acknowledge that dependency on modern technology and digitization in society will increase significantly. 74% of the respondents state that already today – despite the voluntariness of use, one is excluded from some areas of life without the use of digital technology. The other way round, 63% of the respondents assume that people not using digital media are excluded from many areas of social life. This also ties in with the finding that already 30% of the users have the feeling to miss out on something when they are not online.
Digitization with its impact is accepted by the Internet users. Ultimately, these findings indicate that there are no major obstacles to a further digitization of all areas of life.
7.3.5 Will‐Formation
93% of the Internet users associate the Internet with the opportunity to engage with topics that are relevant to them personally. 79% of those surveyed describe the Internet as platform for freedom of speech which shows the high significance of the Internet related to fundamental democratic rights. There are, however, limits to the freedom of speech from the users’ perspective: A significant proportion of 83% of the respondents is in favor of censoring hate comments and insults on the Internet. Meanwhile, the Internet has become highly important when it comes to researching information and shaping opinions. However, the representative Internet users’ attitude appears unclear towards the question of how far freedom of speech may go in the Internet.
7.3.6 Options
Even though nearly one third of the Internet users surveyed has the feeling to miss out on something when they are not online (see above), 90% of the Internet users surveyed nevertheless consider it important to be deliberately offline sometimes or to be able to be offline. Equally clear is the finding that 92% of the respondents consider it legitimate to not install programs that access personal data. Yet here too, this shows ambivalence to the effect that 91% of the respondents assume that many of the Internet o
fferings can access personal data unnoticed. These findings again illustrate just how important transparency related to data collection and transfer really is. Ultimately, the Internet users just want more control in this area.
7.3.7 Behavior on the Internet
How do the Internet users behave? For instance, 74% of the Internet users state that they do not read the general terms and conditions at all when carrying out transactions. 92% of the users claim to take simple precautions (e. g. not reading attachments in emails with unknown senders). Only 27% of the users claim to take further measures for safeguarding identities on the Internet (e. g. deliberate mispresentation, setting up temporary email addresses).
Generally, there is sensitivity to the issue of data protection, on the operational level however, it is obvious that actions exceeding simple precautions are (still) quite rare.
7.3.8 Digital Self‐Determination and Digital Market Places: Conclusion
The study by Mertz et al. [15] is making an important contribution to understanding digital self‐determination from a consumer perspective in two ways. For one, the identified dimensions of the construct of digital self‐determination illustrate more clearly the various characterizing facets. In addition to more person‐related facets, such as competence and level of information, there are expectations as well as characteristics of interaction with the facets of voluntariness, options, and will‐formation. In the overall context, the behavioral information can be seen as a kind of calibration of the aforementioned information, since the above‐mentioned discrepancy between experience, perception, and behavior also becomes evident here.